Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes, following up to Rjack:
>
> > How can there be a contract when there's been no agreement 
> > between the parties involved?....
You want to argue contract formation. I have already told you about
one hundred times that courts use a fact based analysis to determine
whether a contract does or does not exist.

What's so hard to understand about "No formal granting of a license
is necessary in order to give it effect. Any language used by the
owner. . ."? If "no formal language" may form a contract, then what
effect do you think "formal" language (like the GPL) has?

> Rjack already lost this argument under a different subject 
> heading. Each time he loses an argument he reposts it under a new
>  subject heading. See the previous subject heading "Tom Tom and 
> Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..".
>
> Rjack found cases where the court used contract law to determine
>  a remedy for a license violation. Seeing the word "contract", he
>  came to the erroneous conclusion that, just because you can base
>  a remedy on contract law, therefore there is no difference 
> between a license and a contract.

Rahul you should stick to putting words in your *own* mouth -- not
mine.

Let's try some simple set theory, so as to help you understand why
you are simply blathering nonsense:

Consider set A as the set of all contracts. Consider set A' as the
set of all copyright licenses. Now A' is a proper subset of A.
Savvy Kemo Sabe?

Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is
probably the country's most respected intellectual property expert.
He ruled in 2003:

“If a breach of contract (and a copyright license is just a type of
contract). . .”; In re Aimster, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003).

Perhaps you don't want to accept it Rahul but a copyright license
is a *kind* of contract -- just like a lease to rent an apartment
is a *kind* of contract. They are both subsets of the set of all
kinds of contracts.

IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A
CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND
THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF
INFRINGEMENT.

> And therefore, you no longer need an offer an an acceptance to 
> form a contract.

That's bullshit Rahul. I never claimed that. Courts read the
language in context to determine those things.

> So now, let me predict: We will soon see Rjack repost the same 
> flawed argument under yet another subject heading.

So now let me predict that Rahul will soon make a fool out of
himself again. Probably in this thread. . .

Sincerely,
Rjack :)