Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[Rjack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> Oh, here we go again.  That's FUD, Rjack.  You're well aware that 
> that only applies when the other decides to license his code under 
> the GPL, possibly as a consequence of his (free) decision to 
> incorporate some GPL code into his program.

You and thousands of GNUtians are SORELY confused if you truly believe
that an illegal contract (defined as one against "public policy")
becomes a legally enforceable contract just because someone freely
accepts the contract terms. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

For example, the United States Supreme Court in Continental Wall Paper
Co. v. Louis Voigt & Sons Co., 212 U.S. 227 (1909) opined:

"The Court cannot lend its aid in any way to a party seeking to
realize the fruit of an illegal contract, and, while this may at times
result in relieving a purchaser from paying for what he has had,
public policy demands that the court deny its aid to carry out illegal
contracts without regard to individual interests, or knowledge of the
parties."

See also, Eloise Fomby-Denson v. Department of the Army 247 F.3d
1366 (CAFC 2001):

"It is equally well-settled in the principles of general contract law
that courts may not enforce contracts that are contrary to public policy."

Sincerely,
Rjack