Re: The GPL dream is finally over!

[Rjack]

Linonut wrote:
> * Rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> > Linonut wrote:
> >
> > > I'll believe it has the effect you want when it hits the headlines due
> > > to an actual court case involving the GPL.
> > The effect *I* want is irrelevant. It is the direct unequivocal language 
> > of the court that counts:
> >
> > "When a condition precedent is not satisfied, it relieves a party to the 
> > contract of the obligation to perform. It does not negate the existence 
> > of the contract or the binding contractual relationship of the parties."
> >
> > Read it again:
> >
> > "It does not negate the existence of the contract. . .".
> >
> > Anyone who finds that language ambiguous should probably return to
> > kindergarten for a refresher course in reading skills. It's either that 
> > or perhaps their cognitive skills are hopelessly impaired like a large 
> > number of Eben Moglen's true believers.


> Huh?  You take quotes out of context and expect them to be meaningful?
Context eh?

I posted a link to the complete decision and you replied to my post, so
you would have access to the court's decision.

Your mouse button broken so you can't following the link? Fingers 
broken? Cognitive skills broken?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- "[A] condition precedent is a condition precedent to performance
under the contract, not formation of the contract. When a
condition precedent is not satisfied, it relieves a party to the
contract of the obligation to perform. It does not negate the
existence of the contract or the binding contractual relationship
of the parties."; Moratzka v. United States (In re Matthieson),
63 B.R. 56, 60 (D.Minn.1986) --