On 30 Nov 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > By law, what is not explicitly permitted is prohibited. You are permitted > > ONLY to make verbatim copies, you are not allowed to use it as a basis for > > your own license because there is no explicit permission for it. In fact > > there is an explicit denial of the right to make any change at all to > > it, one that is not delimited by further discussion, so is therefore > > absolute by law. > > Copyright law does not extend so far; contracts in general are not > copyrightable.
Please notice that what I posted was the copyright notice of the GPL. Are you saying that the header of the GPL is invalid? Where a part of a statement is proven wrong, the rest must be suspect, so why are we having this discussion if the GPL itself may be invalid? > Thomas > -- Customer: "I'm running Windows '98" Tech: "Yes." Customer: "My computer isn't working now." Tech: "Yes, you said that." Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
