| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GplandGplandPosted Dec 12, 2003 14:18 UTC (Fri) by pyellman (guest, #4997)In reply to: Gpland by danw6144 Parent article: Bob Young writes a letter to Darl >danw6144 You know, it almost sounds like you have something interesting to say. Could you please rewrite your post in a way that is intelligible to the rest of us? Perhaps you could start by avoiding snippets of analogy, and just post for us your definition or interpretation of the terms "invitation" vs. "offer", focusing particularl on the differences and how they are relevant to the debate. Thanks,
(Log in to post comments)
Gpland Posted Dec 12, 2003 14:26 UTC (Fri) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link] I am a physicist by training not a lawyer. The best response to your question might be in the this e-mail exchange between a Law Professor at CSU and Richard Stallman.It's well worth the time required to read. http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html
Gpland Posted Dec 12, 2003 19:19 UTC (Fri) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] I've read it. I believe I understand it. And, as I said in reply to your post above, you seem to be up in arms over an obvious point which was never in dispute.Prof. Mickey Davis is right -- a license is a "unilateral contract" which derives meaning and force from contact law. Richard Stallman is right -- GPL licensors do not claim that licensees have made any promises in return. And Prof. Eben Moglen is right -- the GPL does not require contract enforcement in order to work.
Gpland Posted Dec 12, 2003 21:15 UTC (Fri) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link] The point is the GPL may fall under mixed federal / state law interpretation.There is a vast body of contract case law out there and it varies by the fifty states. See the decision Procd, Inc. v. Zeidenberg. It appears four federal circuits MANDATORY DISCLAIMER: 1) I am a physicist by training ... not a lawyer. If you still insist on flaming me, you should know
|
|
||||||||||||