[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > 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)
> >
> > So this guy disagrees with Moglen, therefore Moglen is wrong and a fraud,
> > based on what?  His credentials?  Moglen is also a practicing IP lawyer as
> > well as a law professor.
> Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.
> http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004301.html
> http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004306.html
> http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004308.html
> http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004309.html
> http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004321.html
> http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004353.html
> http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004358.html
> http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004384.html

Beside that,

"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to
remain within the bounds of the license not because she
voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right
to act at all except as the license permits."


is simply legal nonsense.

Here's an email exchange with RMS:

"I assume, however, that at least some people want the GPL
to be binding--nothing can make it binding except a claim of


-- the respondent's email address resolves to:
MICHAEL H. DAVIS, (Professor of Law) Cleveland State
University. Education: Occidental College (B.A.,1967);
Hofstra Law School (J.D., 1975); Harvard Law School (LL.M.,

Perhaps further consideration should be given to:

"(A``non-contractual copyright permission'' would be some
sort of license that does not involve a contract I
suppose, but that is not a well defined term.)"


-- the respondent's email address resolves to:
Professor of Law Emeritus
Case Western Reserve University
College: Harvard College, A.B. 1955
Law School: Harvard Law School, LL.B. (magna cum laude)

How about this:

"The GPL IS a contract. Calling it a license
simply describes the type of contract it is."

http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss <at> openso

-- the respondent's email address resolves to:
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers University
School of Law, Camden, New Jersey, Fall 1999 to present.
EDUCATION: LL.M. (with Distinction), Georgetown
University Law Center, 1998. J.D., George Washington
University Law School, 1992. M.A., University of
Pittsburgh, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1986. B.A.,
University of Pittsburgh, College of Arts and Sciences,


Doesn't anyone outside the academic legal community harbor
any suspicion that the GPL is broken? Eben Moglen has propounded
specious legal theories without ever citing relevant case, statute
or other legal authority supporting his stance on the validity
of the GPL and his claim that it is not a(n) (invalid) contract.

Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't
he come forward with the appropriate legal citations? Moglen is
a J.D. with a Ph.D. in history and not an LL.M. He would not even
be accepted as qualified for Professorship at many institutions.
What qualifies his word alone as "legal authority"?



Reply to: