Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> license, I don't see where you base this off. > > I'm tired of you, stupid dak.
In short, you can't counter. > Here's GPL FAQ from Welte's attorneys: Oh, that means that you agree with Welte? Interesting news. Anyway, you cite the theory that a "Vertrag" may be constituted by "konkludentes Handeln", like buying something in a shop constitutes a contract. Now if we, for the sake of amusing ourselves, assume that the GPL constitutes such a contract, then we can look into the GPL and see what obligations the licensor is entering according to the GPL. And lo-and-behold, there are none. So the _contractual_ obligations, if we hold to the theory of GPL being a contract, are none for the licensor, apart from ceding the right to stop the licensee from using the software according to the license. Now if the licensor did not even give the licensee source code, the "konkludentes Handeln" which would make the closing of a contract conclusive did not even happen. What you are wanting to sue for is for the "konkludentes Handeln" which would actually make an indication that a contract was being implied. That's backward. It's like suing a customer in a shop for not paying for a ware which the customer first wanted to buy but then did not take to the register. And you do that by suing him because he should really have taken it to the register when he wanted to buy it, as everything that is bought has to be taken to the register according to the AGB of the shop. Anyway, I spelled out two parties you might want to sue according to your legal theories, one more silly than the other. Take your pick. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
