On 8/10/2010 9:49 AM, RJack wrote:
The court in the MySQL case never reviewed or ruled on the
enforceability of the GPL. Witness: "the matter is one of fair
dispute".
It is silly for you to quote out of context when the full citation
is so readily available. It just makes you look like a liar.
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510>
Affidavits submitted by the parties' experts raise a factual dispute
concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative or an
independent and separate work under GPL ΒΆ 2. After hearing, MySQL
seems to have the better argument here, but the matter is one of
fair dispute.
No federal court has ever reviewed the contract language of the
GPL to determine it's enforceability -- ever.
The citation shows that your assertion is plainly false, except in
the limited context of the definition of "ruling". The court has
read the GPL, and says that the "matter of dispute" is how the code
at issue is to be interpreted with respect to the GPL. It is implicit
in this ruling that the court regards the GPL as a valid license and
the arguments are to be on whether the license was breached, not on
whether the GPL is valid.
But denying the obviously true is what a crank does.