Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack made two ludicrious claims.
>
> First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, 
> anybody can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations.

You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate,
despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your
mouth out with soap for claiming such things.

> I will discuss this later.
>
> Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is 
> unenforceable due to illegality.

I have certainly claimed that.

> Let's discuss this below.
>
> Having claimed that the GPL contains illegal terms, Rjack is having
>  a very, very hard time specifying just what in the GPL is illegal.
Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
> He sort of implied that the ilelgality came from antitrust, when he
>  wrote: "The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge
>  to all third parties." Price-fixing sounds like antitrust, doesn't
>  it?  But when I probed about this, Rjack denied that he was 
> thinking of antitrust. OK, let's grant him that.
>
> And just as well, bcause we know there is no antitrust issue.  We 
> know there isn't because Daniel Wallace, in Rjack style, argued 
> that repeatedly and lost in court about five times (!) before 
> giving up.
If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks never address
issues raised in argument. Ad hominen attacks are a mark of
desperation denoting that you have no rational reply.

> What else is there that could be illegal in the GPL? I can't find 
> anything.

You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
just denying and lying.

> And neither, you might have notice, can Rjack.

Sure I have. You just keep denying and then lying.

> So in his latest posting, his reasoning now essentially is:
>
> If you can't prove that the GPL is enforceable, then it must be 
> illegal.
>
> Two problems here.
>
> First, as a practical matter, the GPL is enforceable, because it's 
> routinely enforced.

Just show me the U.S. court decisions -- not your fantasies.

> Second, even if it were not, that would not necessarily make it 
> illegal.

Nice leap of logic in hedging your bet there Rahul.

> Illegality is just one of many possible reasons why a contract (if
>  the GPL causes a contract to form) might be unenforceable.

Name one reason other than violation of the canons of contract
construction.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)