Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Sex, 2006-05-12 às 12:44 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> [...]
> > The GPL is not a contract, 
> 
> Sez who? )Besides you and other brainwashed GNUtians, that is.) 
> 
> Here's what the FSF own hired lawyers said in court of law.
> 
> http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf
> 
> <quote>
> 
> the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the
> terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the
> complaint, the contract controls."
> 
> </quote> 
> 
> See? The CONTRACT controls.

You're misquoting. That sub-quote is in favour of Wallace's position:

Here's the full two paragraphs:

        **Plaintiff's mischaracterization** of the GPL in his Response
        has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to
        Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o
        the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with
        the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls."
        Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir.
        2005).1
        **Contrary to Plaintiff**, the GPL is indisputably a **vertical
        agreement** between the licensee and the licensor of the
        underlying software, **as the Court has already held** in
        granting the FSF's prior motion to dismiss:

What remains to be seen is if that's either intentional misquoting, or
just plain stupidity.

Rui

signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente