Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
>
> That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank 
> universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge who
> does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored.

The judge never interpreted the terms of the GPL. She merely
acknowledged the existence of a contract which some GNUtians
hope to deny is a contract.

> I gave him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be 
> ignored ("I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... source
> code ... didn't cure the breach.") None of your twisting and spinning
> can change the simple and obvious fact that here is a judge who does
> not believe that the terms of the GPL can be ignored.

You're playing semantic games. "[A} judge who does not believe the terms
of the GPL can be ignored" means a judge who interprets the GPL terms to
be enforceable. No federal judge has ever construed the terms of the GPL
at all. Moooooooooooooooooove the goalposts Hyman -- it won't help --
but mooooooooooooooooooove them anyway if it makes you feel better.

This is an identical situation to those who claim nonexistent GPL
settlement victories.

Sincerely,
RJack :)