Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[amicus_curious]

"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gXFyl.80774$Zp.65303@newsfe21.iad...
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:32:52 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>
> > Thufir Hawat wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A
> > > > > > CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND
> > > > > > THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF
> > > > > > INFRINGEMENT.
> > > > >
> > > > > Assuming this is so, what's your point?
> > > > The point of an original newsgroup post seems to evolvs with the
> > > > number of posts to the thread. I think we were discussing legal
> > > > enforcement of the GPL.
> > >
> > >
> > > If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in
> > > your view?
> > The GPL contains unenforceable terms.
>
>
> When other EULA are ignored by the end users, the response is typically
> copyright infringement, right?
I don't think that is the case very often, if ever.  A license term may be 
that the user is not permitted to rent out usage of the product.  A company 
that sells computer systems with unlicensed software may be sued and/or 
prosecuted, but the people who bought the computers are not.  Where pressure 
can be applied, such as the Genuine Software Advantage effort by Microsoft, 
the end user is given a series of offers to come clean, but they often 
result in a gratis license, or so it has been reported.