[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: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:06:35 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal. And he protests:

Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of just denying and lying.

OK, readers, I need your assistance here.

I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted.
Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen
 Rjack ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short
 while I thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he
 was not.

Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that tells us what in the GPL is illegal?

Until you understand what the term "illegal" means when used in the
context of contract construction any "specific description" will be
meaningless since you will reflexively deny that any "specific
description" whatsoever is "illegal". Here's a definition:

"A contract may be unenforceable due to illegality. The illegality may
take different forms. The contract in its entirety may be illegal or
the contract may have an illegal term." -- Essentials of Contract Law,
Phyllis Hurley Frey, Published by Cengage Learning, 2000, ISBN
0766821455, 9780766821453.

The courts apply "rules" of contract construction when construing a
contract. Break one of those rules and an illegal term may result. An
illegal term could comprise different forms: violation of a criminal
statute, civil statute or a violation of a common law rule of
contract construction. An illegal term may cause all or just a
severable part of a contract to be unenforceable.

The only section of the GPL that is of great controversay is Section
2(b) which attempts to establish the principle of "copyleft":

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."

The illegal part of the term is "... licensed as a whole at no charge
to all third parties under the terms of this License". The part "...
under the terms of this License" means that all future derivative
works must be under the same GPL license terms.

1) This violates 17 USC sec 301(a) which is a civil statute of The
United States Code (Copyright Act).

2) Section 2(b) also violates the common law rule of statutory
construction which holds that a contract to make a contract is
unenforceable when all the essential terms that bind the future
parties are not present:

"[A] contract to make a contract is enforceable only where all
material terms have been agreed upon. 1 Corbin, Contracts, sec. 2.8,
at 131, 133-34 (Perillo ed. 1993). Prisma Zona's own statements, and
the service contract drafts which it attaches, show that material
issues were still open."; Prisma Zona Exploratoria de Puerto Rico,
Inc. v. Calderón 310 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002).

"Under Michigan law, "[t]o be enforceable, a contract to enter into
a future contract must specify all its material and essential terms
and leave none to be agreed upon as the result of future
negotiations." Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. v. Waldo, 286 N.W. 630, 632
(Mich. 1939)”

Now Rahul, had you *actually* been reading any of my posts, you would
know that the above "specific descriptions" of illegality are a
repetition of my post of Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44 to gnu.misc.discuss,, comp.os.linux.advocacy.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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