Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3

[rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> rjack <rjack@com> writes:
>
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > > David Kastrup writes:
> > > > An "illegal document"?  Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the
> > > > GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be
> > > > pornography or similar.
> > > Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional".  The phrase
> > > "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least
> > > under US law.
> > A document (instrument) is illegal if it is used for some some purpose
> > contrary to established law.
> >
> >
> > For example a document to consummate a violation of law:
> >
> > 1. illegal immigration documents
> > 2. counterfit bonds or false ID's
> > 3. contract to perpetrate or induce a tort (GPL3)
>
> Those are _invalid_ (let us just disregard the nonsensical
> parenthetical remark on point 3).  The possession or creation or
> dissemination or employment for a particular purpose of such documents
> may be illegal.
>
> The documents themselves don't break laws.  People do.
Oh vey, the pain, the pain of it all!