Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> 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.

In General:

"Whether Medeiros read the provisions concerning additional and
underage drivers or not, he must be presumed to have known the law and
intended to be bound by an objectively reasonable understanding of the
terms of the contract, and Shasta Ford was entitled to so assume.
Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared expectation
that the parties will execute the contract in accord with the law. See
John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo, Contracts 889 (3rd ed.1987)
(noting that parties may not generally bargain for or agree to an
illegal term and that "[a]s a general rule an illegal bargain is
unenforceable and often void.")1"; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 143 F.3d
1260 (9th Cir. 1998).
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html

Why not try CHAPTER 9 p.186 "Essentials of Contract Law"; Frey&Frey,
West Legal Studies
http://books.google.com/books?id=WrH-4YHvsF4C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=%22illegal+term%22+unenforceable+contract&source=bl&ots=P5eIw4nsuL&sig=LtOqGNN9omxK9w5zOw6Ttbek788&hl=en&ei=T67fSddi0eKdB7mL2K0J&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

How about Section 1702 "NEGOTIATING AND DRAFTING CONTRACT
BOILERPLATE";Tina Stark
http://books.google.com/books?id=hhbeYinQIS0C&pg=PA541&lpg=PA541&dq=%22illegal+term%22+unenforceable+contract+%22second+circuit%22&source=bl&ots=Y2uFNyLDOv&sig=0F9OFGLx1nH4o5-PFDF2LFN_fuQ&hl=en&ei=qLTfScG9C-TfnQfuhPG3CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Why not Google [ "illegal agreements" unenforceable contracts ]?
> 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.

Sigh. Since the GPL has never been reviewed by a court with proper
jurisdiction, you're going to look for a loooooong time. Since you
obviously don't understand what an "illegal" term means in general
contract interpretation your quest is ultimately futile anyway.

> 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?

You can continue to parse the meaning of what "is" is but
what you are demonstrating is that you don't understand when to hold
'em and when to fold 'em.

Ah Rahul. Did you think you could fool a Corlene?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)