Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[Rjack]

amicus_curious wrote:
> "Rjack" <user@example.net> wrote in message 
> 04CdnTQPD_EVtEjVnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@giganews.com">news:04CdnTQPD_EVtEjVnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@giganews.com...
> > > Assume I have the source code for the Linux 2.6 kernel.
> > > Suppose I want to use just a piece of it. How small a piece
> > > does it have to be before I'm no longer violating the GPL?

> So do you want to "steal" this code and go into business armed
> only with a clone of a clone?

So do you want to "steal" code to achieve your socialist dreams?
GPL authors obviously want to "steal" other author's exclusive
rights by intimidation [n.1] with a copyright license that is
clearly an illegal misuse of copyright.

I find it incredible that after listening to seven years of pure
legal gibberish from Eben "a license is not a contract" Moglen, you
still spout crap such as: "So do you want to "steal" this code. .
.". It seems that your ignorance of the law is exceeded only by your
gullibility:

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006).

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

[n.1] Intimidation is clearly the sole intent of the BusyBox suits
filed by the SFLC. The SFLC will *never*, *never* allow one of
their bogus copyright suits to proceed to the stage where a judge
actually construes the GPL under contract and copyright law.