Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3

[David Kastrup]

rjack <rjack@com> writes:

> John Hasler wrote:
>> David Kastrup writes:
>>> An "illegal document"?  Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the
>>> GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be
>>> pornography or similar.
>>
>> Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional".  The phrase
>> "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least
>> under US law.
>
> A document (instrument) is illegal if it is used for some some purpose
> contrary to established law.
>
>
> For example a document to consummate a violation of law:
>
> 1. illegal immigration documents
> 2. counterfit bonds or false ID's
> 3. contract to perpetrate or induce a tort (GPL3)

Those are _invalid_ (let us just disregard the nonsensical
parenthetical remark on point 3).  The possession or creation or
dissemination or employment for a particular purpose of such documents
may be illegal.

The documents themselves don't break laws.  People do.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum