Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Peter Köhlmann]

Rjack wrote:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Rjack wrote:
>>>> The BusyBox suits are over. Get over spinning the
>>>> hypothetical settlements.
>>> After each case was settled, the defendants or their agents
>>> made the source code properly available under the GPL.
>>> 
>>>> Move on to creating explanations to justify the SFLC's
>>>> evasion of an interpretation of the GPL on its merits in the
>>>> upcoming expected voluntary dismissal in the Cisco case.
>>> The explanation is that once the parties reach agreement on a
>>> settlement, the case is dismissed. Courts do not hold trials
>>> when the parties no longer have a dispute.
>> 
>> Also there is no "evasion of an interpretation of the GPL" since
>> the GPL is not even under dispute.  It would only be under
>> dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a defense.  The
>> cases up to now have been cut&dry sufficiently for that not to be
>> a viable option.
>> 
>> So even if the SFLC carried on, they'd get an interpretation of
>> the validity of copyright law in general rather than of the GPL.
>> Nothing interesting in that.
>> 
> 
> Would the GPL be construed as a contract and interpreted under state
> law?

No. It is a licence

And you are dumb. Incredibly so
-- 
Tact, n.:
        The unsaid part of what you're thinking.