Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
Sure, but the hollering about "GPL is not enforceable" is beside
the point....
I am beginning to believe that you *really* don't understand that a
U.S. court will refuse to enforce an illegal contract term against a
defendant regardless of whether the defendant agreed to the term or
not. What is so hard to grasp concerning the principle that an illegal
contract term is construed against the drafter of the contract?
Did you all notice this major shift in Rjack's position?
Previously, he was content to claim that the GPL is merely
unenforceable, and the basis of his claim was that the GPL forms a
contract, and monetary damages for the breach of this contract would be
zero. Rjack, assumed, without any basis in law, that the copyright owner
of a GPL-licensed work could get only monetary damages (equalling zero)
and never an injunction prohibiting any further copying by the
infringer.
Rjack lost the above argument shortly after the CAFC recognized
what it called the "economic" interest if a software author wanting to
enforce the Artistic License.
So now, according to Rjack, suddenly, the GPL contains illegal terms! In
other words, if you try to enforce a provision in the GPL, it's like you
are trying to kill somebody, and the courts won't let you.
--