Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-881.pdf
>
> Oh, goody! I love when your postings militate against your own
> thesis. Read the footnote on page 24: "a fair and equitable
> result will be preferred over a harsh and unreasonable one," and
> "an interpretation that will produce an inequitable result will
> be adopted only when the contract so expressly and unequivocally
> so provides that there is no other reasonable interpretation to
> be given it." Peirce v. Peirce, 994 P.2d 193, 198 (Utah 2000)
>
> This reflects what I've said before.

This reflects the fact that the GPL is referred to and treated as a
contract in a court of law by experienced lawyers -- just like
Alexander told you it was. Don't try to change the subject to other
dicta and thereby moooooooooooooooooooooooooove the goalposts

> No matter how GPL-skeptics twist and spin, the plain language and
> clear intention of the GPL are going to inform court decisions,
> and courts will enforce the conditions of the GPL as written.
> We've already seen this with the CAFC with respect to the
> Artistic License, and we've seen that Sam's lawyers have no
> qualms about treating the GPL as valid. No bad-faith code grabber
> will prevail.