Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies
On 18 Jan 2006 10:31:12 -0500, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> Frank Küster writes:
>
> > I wouldn't be too sure that "set" doesn't have a different meaning to
> > lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists.
> >
> > Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine
> > sequence to include conditional execution and loops.
>
> Regardless of what copyright law defines a thing to mean, contracts
> are free to define the terms they use, and where such a definition is
> given directly or via parol evidence, it supercedes (within the scope
> of that contract) the definitions found in statute or copyright office
> policies.
Legal outcome from attempts to override terms of art and legal terms
with some gibberish GNUspeak aside for a moment, the GPL is not
a contract, says Moglen.
Comprehendo?
regards,
alexander.
Reply to: