Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > Care to post a link to rules of New York?
> > It's not up to me. You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up.
> In this type of offence it sorta goes the other way around: let Moglen back
> up some of his fraudulent legal claims like "the GPL is not a contract" ("no
> need" to upper case disclaimers aside for a moment).
Here's an example.
(PTRAVEL is a practicing IP lawyer and litigator)
"Alexander Terekhov" <terek...@web.de> wrote in message
> PTRAVEL wrote:
>> I'm calling a license a contract because it is an enforceable promise,
>> the definition of a contract.
> <quote author=Moglen>
> The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral
> permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by
> the licensor.
Moglen is wrong, both factually and legally. The GPL expressly conditions
the license grant on compliance with specific terms.
> Got it? I just love it. ;-)