Re: Distributing GPL software.
On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov <email@example.com> wrote:
> Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
> like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
> the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
> covenant to forbear from the exercise of the statutory right under
> 17 USC 109 and instead provide access to source code as the
> copyright owner decrees). My argument is that it's quite easy to
> "escape" it by NOT entering into agreement.
In the case Saris ruled on, there was a signed contract.
What is your basis for your claim that that aspect of this ruling is
relevant in contexts without a signed contract?