Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 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

17 USC 301(a) preempts GPL's sec. 2(b).

When examining a copyright license one of the first things a federal
judge does is look for preempted terms -- it is mandatory he do so
since preemption could possibly remove his jurisdiction to even hear
the case.

> b) that anything illegal in the GPL does not merely invalidate the 
> GPL (after which normal copyright laws and restrictions set in),
NOT.

A cause of action for promissory estoppal is created. I find it
curious that you actually  believe that because someone relied on
*your* illegal contract of adhesion offer, you have the right to
sue them. That's real Stallman chutzpah! The ultimate scammer's scam
come true.

> but replaces the permission granted by the GPL with an 
> unconditional permission to do whatever you want

Who said that? You gotta' mouse in your pocket?

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

Forget *Through the Looking-Glass*. The fantasy allusions are
obviously too sophisticated for your little mind to grasp. Besides,
you're already residing in the delusional Land of GNU.

Sincerely,
Rjack