[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:25:06 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack made two ludicrious claims.

First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations.

You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate,
despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your
mouth out with soap for claiming such things.

I will discuss this later.

Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is unenforceable due to illegality.

I have certainly claimed that.

Let's discuss this below.

Having claimed that the GPL contains illegal terms, Rjack is having
 a very, very hard time specifying just what in the GPL is illegal.

Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.

He sort of implied that the ilelgality came from antitrust, when he
 wrote: "The licensing fees in the GPL are price fixed a no charge
 to all third parties." Price-fixing sounds like antitrust, doesn't
it? But when I probed about this, Rjack denied that he was thinking of antitrust. OK, let's grant him that.

And just as well, bcause we know there is no antitrust issue. We know there isn't because Daniel Wallace, in Rjack style, argued that repeatedly and lost in court about five times (!) before giving up.

If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks never address
issues raised in argument. Ad hominen attacks are a mark of
desperation denoting that you have no rational reply.

What else is there that could be illegal in the GPL? I can't find anything.

You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
just denying and lying.

And neither, you might have notice, can Rjack.

Sure I have. You just keep denying and then lying.

So in his latest posting, his reasoning now essentially is:

If you can't prove that the GPL is enforceable, then it must be illegal.

Two problems here.

First, as a practical matter, the GPL is enforceable, because it's routinely enforced.

Just show me the U.S. court decisions -- not your fantasies.

Second, even if it were not, that would not necessarily make it illegal.

Nice leap of logic in hedging your bet there Rahul.

Illegality is just one of many possible reasons why a contract (if
 the GPL causes a contract to form) might be unenforceable.

Name one reason other than violation of the canons of contract

Rjack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]