Re: JMRI case -- Implementation of the Federal Circuit's Opinion

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:

> To have the GPL evaluated on "its merits", the defendant has to state
> that he considers being in compliance with the GPL. 

And so, just why does the defendant *have* to state "that he 
considers being in compliance with the GPL."? Is there a gun against 
his head?

Why couldn't a defendant just as easily claim that Section 2(b) of 
the GPL was:

(1) Contractually unenforcible.
(2) Preempted by 17 USC 301(a).

Sincerely,
Rjack :)