Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rahul Dhesi]

Rjack has outdone himself.

I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to show
that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since we have a
couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing when a contract
should be unenforceable due to illegality, Rjack ought to be able to
provide some case law citations. Intesad, Rjack went to answers.com and
merriam-webster.com to try to prove his point.

So now he responds:

>***Rahul compared a breach of contract issue to a criminal offense:

Talk about a non-sequitor.

Rjack, I thought you said the GPL was unenforceable? But now you are
talking about a breach of contract.

I didn't compare breach of contract to a criminal offense. In fact I
didn't even mention breach of contract, since you were arguing that the
GPL was unenforceable. If I agreed that the GPL is unenforceable, it
would be silly of me to talk about the GPL being breached, even if I
agreed, and I don't, that the GPL normally causes a contract to form.

I did say that killing somebody would be an example of something being
illegal.

Im still looking for some case law citations (and that doesn't mean
quotes from answers.com and merriam-webster.com :-) showing that the GPL
contains any illegal term. If you can't find any state law citations,
how about something from your previosly-favored (in the pre-answers.com
days) authority on the common law of contracts, i.e., the Second
Circuit?
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/