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

Re: GPL v3 Draft

On 1/17/06, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to
> > paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory:
> >
> >    No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
> >    the past 50(?) years; but since everyone is shouting, everyone
> >    thought there must be some reason. I've decided to take take the
> >    initiative and return to mixed case, ending the endless shouting
> >    match.
> Yeah.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit:

"Uniform Commercial Code §  2-316(2), which requires that any
exclusion or modification of the implied warranty of merchantability
be conspicuous, and that any exclusion or modification of the implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose be made in a conspicuous
writing. A contract's warranty disclaimer satisfies the conspicuous
requirement when it is printed in all capital letters, when it appears
in a larger type than the terms around it, or when it is in a larger
and boldface type. Likewise, a disclaimer in boldface type, printed in
all capitals on the face of the warranty above the buyer's signature
meets the definition of conspicuousness. A disclaimer is not [*25] 
conspicuous, however, when it is printed in small print on the back of
the document, when it is the same size and typeface as the terms
around it, or when it is not in boldface or capital lettering."

But we all know that the GPL is a license-not-a-contract, and so UCC
and related case law simply doesn't apply.


"> LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see
 > proprietary modules as an infringement?
 > Eben: Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the
 > degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder
 > of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with
 > some modules loaded is a "a work" and because any module that is
 > dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and
 > because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what
 > determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear
 > analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the
 > license if it's pure GPL.

 Analytically, the above would be true only if the first Nth
 hyperbolic cosines of the address registers are congruent (in a
 Hilbert Space) to the metric tenor of the hard drive space when
 mapped one to one onto (or is it into?) a finite but unbounded
 timelike manifold.

 Eben's got more bullshit rap than Snoop Dogg. "

                                              -- day5done.

Reply to: