Re: IBM's interpretation of the GNU GPL contract

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-881.pdf (and Linux derivative^Wderived 
> work as whole.)
>
> He he.
>
> I like footnote 9 about New York law on preambles and other pefatory
> language in a contract aiding its interpretation. :-)
>
> regards,
> alexander.

IBM argues throughout its MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION that the GPL license 
is a contract.

For example IBM argues forcefully at footnote 8 on page 22:

"SCO's statement. . . [N]ot only flies in the face of the unambiguous 
language of the GPL and standard rules of contract interpretation. . ."

Does this mean that the esteemed Eben Moglen, RMS and his faithful 
disciples have simply been blathering reams of FUD when claiming that 
the "The GPL is a License, Not a Contract"?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851