Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> > In re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003)
> > (“If a breach of contract (and a copyright license is just a type of
> > contract) . . . ”); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d
> > 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Whether express or implied, a license is a
> > contract ‘governed by ordinary principles of state contract law’ ”.)
> > "This implied license does not offend the protection afforded patent
> > and trademark rights by federal law. Instead, licenses, like other
> > federal property and contract rights, conform to the applicable state
> > laws. See Power Lift, 871 F.2d at 1085; see also Mallinckrodt, 976
> > F.2d at 703. As this court observed in Power Lift, the Supreme Court
> > has held that federal patent law does not preempt enforcement of
> > contracts under state law. Id. (discussing Aronson v. Quick Point
> > Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257, 261-64, 201 USPQ 1, 4-6 (1979)). By the
> > same reasoning, federal trademark law does not preempt contract
> > enforcement either. Intellectual property owners "may contract as
> > they choose," Mallinckrodt, 976 F.2d at 703, but their intellectual
> > property rights do not entitle them to escape the consequences of
> > dishonoring state contractual obligations"
> >
> > That's the law. Go read the cases.
> 
> Not only that's not "the law" but also what it says is that all those

Hey retard, go visit <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law>.

> items do not *preempt* enforcement of contracts.

What part of "their intellectual property rights do not entitle 
them to escape the consequences of dishonoring state contractual 
obligations" don't you understand, stupid?

Intellectual property licenses are contracts governed by ordinary 
principles of state contract law.

[... respect the GNU GPL ...]

I respect your right to look like an idiot.

regards,
alexander.