Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

[RJack]

On 8/10/2010 1:21 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 1:10 PM, RJack wrote:
> > As I said, no federal court has ever reviewed the contract language
> > of the GPL. It is common for those unfamiliar with legal
> > proceedings to confuse a "matter of fact" with a "matter of law".
>
> There are thousands of licenses which have never been reviewed by a
> court. In the case of the GPL, we actually have a judge who has read
>  the license and did not say "What? This is crazy!" but instead sees
>  it as an ordinary license about which there can be ordinary disputes
>  as to whether its terms have been met. That is more court scrutiny
> than most other licenses ever get.
>
> No court has ever said that the GPL is not valid, including a court
> that has read the GPL. I will rely on that, rather than the wishful
> thinking of a crank who believes that someday a court will see things
> his way.

Where did the court state that it even *read* the GPL?

"Affidavits submitted by the parties' experts raise a factual dispute
concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative or an independent
and separate work under GPL ¶ 2."

*Affidavits* submitted by the parties is not the GPL. Just like the case
where the Artistic License is not the GPL.

What say ye now dear Hyman?

Yea! My License's Got A Hole In It
Yea! My License's Got A Hole In It
Yea! My License's Got A Hole In It
I can't buy no beer.

Well I'm standin' on a corner - With a license in my hand
I'm waitin' for a woman - That ain't got no man.

'Cause My License's Got A Hole In It
Yea! My License's Got A Hole In It
Yea! My License's Got A Hole In It
I can't buy no beer.

Sincerely,
RJack :)