On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The law as written says that you do not have permission to copy > > except as granted by a license. Thus the GPL's license grant > > is not only applicable, it's the issue which is most likely to be > > contested in such a case. > > Except for all the other times that you have permission to copy, as > defined in the applicable statute and case law. Which is not the > point here anyway; the point is that it's an offer of contract, not a > statute and not some magical creature of copyright law, and that means > you are analyzing it from utterly the wrong angle and cannot possibly > arrive at correct legal conclusions. (IANAL, TINLA.)
At no point did I assume that the GPL was a statute, nor a magical creature. In other words, you're begging the question. (And arguing a straw man.) -- Raul