Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[David Kastrup]

c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
>>>> 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....
> ...
>>> Would the GPL be construed as a contract and interpreted under state
>>> law?
>
>>Do you even read what you are replying to?  If the defendant does not
>>claim compliance, the GPL is not relevant to the case.
>
> I think Rjack has a valid point that a court might well treat the GPL as
> a contract in such a case.

Huh?  You can't be held to a contract you did not sign.

> But the defendant, if he loses, still loses big, as shown below.

Sure, but the validity of the GPL does not figure in the game.

-- 
David Kastrup