Re: GPL Mere Aggregation question

[rjack]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <8763yjof7v.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>,
>  John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
>
> > avesty writes:
> > > I like the idea of the GPL and what it stands for, just not this apparent
> > > openness to 'interpretation'.
> > Then you won't like any legal document of any kind.
> >
> > > It seems there should be definitive defendable answers to questions like
> > > the ones I have...
> > > ...
> > > That's the other reason I asked if there were lawyers that specialize
> > > in this sort of thing...
> > If you expect a definitive defendable answer from a lawyer you are going to
> > be disappointed.
>
> And asking on Usenet is definitely not the way to get it.  No reputable 
> lawyer would express a detailed opinion in this way.

> > And asking on Usenet is definitely not the way to get it.  No reputable 
> > lawyer would express a detailed opinion in this way.

"Reputable lawyer" is statistical oxymoron:

"75 to 90 percent of American trial lawyers are incompetent, dishonest 
or both." --- the late Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the United States 
Supreme Court.

Regards,
rjack

--- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by 
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi 
Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit 1995) ---

--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101- 1332, 
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal 
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the 
relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v.
Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals 
for the Seventh Circuit 2006) ---