[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:08:23 +0200 |
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> It's not because you're not required to accept it. :)
Ah that. Well, it appears that Prof. Nimmer also thinks that RMS is a
lunatic. "GPL has a schizophrenic approach as to whether it is grounded
in contractual or non-contractual terms. ...
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this license. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program ... you indicate your
acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions
for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on
it.63
This language, which is of a type used in contractual arrangements such
as in commercial shrinkwrap licenses, clearly contemplates creation of a
contractual relationship.64 Acceptance of a license is not relevant to
a non-contractual restriction. The restriction simply exists. If the
model followed by the GPL were non-contractual in nature, the language
referring to acceptance would not be used. Instead, the copyright owner
might simply state: You may copy, modify, and distribute this software,
but only in compliance with the following conditions. Instead language
of acceptance is present. This suggests a document that contemplates
creating a contractual relationship if accepted by the other party.
The Preamble to GPL refers to the creation of obligations consistent
with a contractual relationship. The Preamble states: To protect your
rights, we need to make restrictions ... These restrictions translate
to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the
software, or if you modify it. The reference to responsibilities
indicates contractual obligations undertaken by accepting the terms of
the license and creating a contract."
> Of course your "mighty" slander can only make your "right".
Slander? There's a whole bunch of evidence that you both (RMS and mini-
RMS) are lunatics... kind of software taliban. And GNU-nazis.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. http://www.linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/20
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/20
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/20
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/22
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/22
- Message not available
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/24
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/07/24
- Message not available
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/07/24
- Message not available
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, John Hasler, 2006/07/24
- Message not available
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/25
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/07/25
- Message not available
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/26
Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/26