[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL question

From: rjack
Subject: Re: GPL question
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:04:49 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)

Mike Cox wrote:
On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler <> wrote:
[bah, google groups seems broken]

Mike Cox writes:
In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible.  Confusion
arises again.

Rjack is a troll.  There is no point in trying to make sense of what he

I'm new here; how am I supposed to know who is a troll and who
is not. Last time I was here he was not. To the naked eye he seems
to be very fluent in copyright law.

Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer. Rjack relies on the text of published United States statutes and federal court case law for his personal observations.

Ultimately, the Constitution and the Copyright Act mean exactly what the men in the black robes say it means (especially the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts of Appeals).

If rjack sees the name of a copyright "expert" repeatedly cited to by the courts for legal authority (i.e. Nimmer, Goldstein, Patry) he listens closely. Conversely, when he sees someone (i.e. Eben Moglen at the FSF or Pamela Jones at Groklaw) make claims that obviously contradict established precedental rulings by the appellate courts he suspects that someone may be spreading nonsense propaganda.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]