Re: SFLC is SOL

[Hyman Rosen]

On 4/13/2010 9:20 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936

I can quote meaningless random papers too!
<http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf>
    But no matter how one construes the GPL, the requirement of
    consideration is not met. Though the licensor’s restrictions
    in rights might benefit the licensor, the GPL does not state
    whether those restrictions would translate into consideration
    and if consideration would benefit the licensor or a third
    party. The lack of a meeting of minds makes the GPL contract
    theory fly in the face of the UCC, state common law, and common
    sense. This leads us back to Moglen’s now plausible assertion
    that the GPL is not a contract.