Re: Attorney fees

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> [... GPL invalidity ...]
>
>> That paper is a link to a critique of the decision,
>> not to a court decision. The court decision held that
>> without accepting the GPL, there is no other right to
>> distribute. Until an actual other case or appeal finds
>> differently, the decision stands, regardless of whether
>> or not some commenting judge likes it, and the GPL is
>> legal and distribution of GPLed software is an implicit
>> agreement to the license.
>
> Suppose that the GPLv4 will include a "condition" to make available
> not only the source code but also a bunch of child pornography photos.

Suppose it won't matter because World War III is going at full tilt.

> According to drunken bavarian judges from district court Munich I
> (senselessly parroting bizarre "legal construction" offered by Welte's
> attorneys from ifross.de), not making available child pornography
> would then result in copyright liability just like not making
> available source code.

Uh yes.  No valid license, and default copyright rules set in.
Presumably child pornography would not help either since such a
condition would be "sittenwidrig", and the respective license invalid as
a consequence.  But an invalid license means just a lack of extra
permission, nothing less, nothing more.

> Utter idiots. Just like you, Hyman.

Pretty much like him, yes.  Which is not all too impressive for the
level of idiocy.  For a real blundering idiot, there is just no
alternative to you.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum