Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

[David Kastrup]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>>
>>> GNU fans never lose, they just mooooooooooooooooooove the
>>> goalposts.
>
> First.
>
> I have made a consistent claim in a long history of internet
> postings that, "The GPL is unenforceable under U.S. copyright law".

Sure.  It says so itself:

      9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

      You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
    run a copy of the Program.  Ancillary propagation of a covered work
    occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
    to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance.  However,
    nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate
    or modify any covered work.  These actions infringe copyright if you
    do not accept this License.  Therefore, by modifying or propagating
    a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
    so.

A licence that you don't need to accept most certainly is unenforceable.
Feel free to do whatever you want that you could legally do without
having the GPL as a license.

If that is not enough for you, you can voluntarily accept the GPL,
heeding its terms.

The GPL is not enforceable.  Copyright is.  The GPL does not give up
copyright, it just spells out a few things you might do in addition to
the provisions of copyright, under conditions.

If you are not interested, that's your right.  The GPL is not
enforceable.  And it says so itself.

So what is your point?

-- 
David Kastrup