Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.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.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/af75f708f55b4f5a
(PTRAVEL is a practicing IP lawyer and litigator)
----
"Alexander Terekhov" <terek...@web.de> wrote in message
news:43A30107.2BE0851A@web.de...
>
> PTRAVEL wrote:
> [...]
>> I'm calling a license a contract because it is an enforceable promise,
>> i.e.
>> 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.
>
> </quote>
>
> Got it? I just love it. ;-)
>
> regards,
> alexander.
----
regards,
alexander.
Reply to: