Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"

[Rjack]

Hadron wrote:

> If "slightest difficulty" means you don't really care the fine. But
>  to try and maintain it's clear and easy is somewhat disingenuous 
> on your part. It should be abbundantly apparent to anyone who 
> follows thread about the GPL that it's not "easy" and "totally 
> clear" at all.

What is "easy" and "totally clear" is that we have an author and "Two
prominent IP lawyers" who are actually ignorant enough to pose
questions like: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?" and "This marks
one of the core questions of GPLv2: Is it based on copyright or is it
a contract that, while borrowing some copyright terms, ultimately
stands on its own?".

"Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995).

"Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in
construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under
Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written."
Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d 218, 226
(Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit 1999).

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006).

For God's sake where do GPL proponents dredge up these incompetent
Shysters? Where'd they graduate fron law school? Groklaw?

ROFL
Sincerely,
Rjack