Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> On 18 Jan 2006 10:31:12 -0500, Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.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.
Read the freaking archives already. This is not a new question for
debian-legal. You put an entirely misplaced emphasis on what the FSF
says about the GPL's nature as a contract or not. Until you show at a
modicum of research and novel contribution, I will not explain to you
why that is irrelevant. Likewise, until you bother to abide by the
Debian Mailing List Rules of Conduct -- including the bits about
not spamming, not flaming, and CC'ing people only on request -- I will
not help you understand how the law applies.