Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sonny! Uncle Hasler has spoken! > > John Hasler wrote: >> >> David Kastrup writes: >> > An "illegal document"? Well, I've heard quite a few weird attacks on the >> > GPL, but this is the first time I see someone suspecting it to be >> > pornography or similar. >> >> Well, the doofuses at SCO claimed GPLv2 was "unconstitutional". The phrase >> "illegal document" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, at least >> under US law. > > http://supreme.justia.com/us/38/157/case.html > > "a void, useless, and illegal document"
I should hope that you can come up with something better than a verdict from 1839: one has to suspect that the formal use of certain terms in the legal profession might have evolved somewhat in the last 168 years. Even then, the word "illegal" in this passage of the verdict is not employed in a formal sense but as part of a rhetorical figure. -- 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
