Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[David Kastrup]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

> 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.

Now you just need to show

a) anything illegal in the GPL

b) that anything illegal in the GPL does not merely invalidate the GPL
(after which normal copyright laws and restrictions set in), but
replaces the permission granted by the GPL with an unconditional
permission to do whatever you want

Not just one, but two tiny little obstacles.  You don't happen to be the
White Queen?

    `You needn't say "exactly",' the Queen remarked. `I can believe it
    without that. Now I'll give you something to believe. I'm just one
    hundred and one, five months and a day.'

    `I ca'n't believe that!' said Alice.

    `Ca'n't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again: draw a
    long breath, and shut your eyes.'

    Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said `one ca'n't believe
    impossible things.'

    `I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I
    was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes
    I've believed as many as six impossible things before
    breakfast. There goes the shawl again!' 


-- 
David Kastrup