Re: GPL question

[rjack]

Mike Cox wrote:
> On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler <j...@dhh.gt.org> 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
> > writes.
>
> 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.