David Kastrup wrote:
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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.
A document (instrument) is illegal if it is used for some some purpose
contrary to established law.
For example a document to consummate a violation of law:
1. illegal immigration documents
2. counterfit bonds or false ID's
3. contract to perpetrate or induce a tort (GPL3)
Those are _invalid_ (let us just disregard the nonsensical
parenthetical remark on point 3). The possession or creation or
dissemination or employment for a particular purpose of such documents
may be illegal.
The documents themselves don't break laws. People do.
Oh vey, the pain, the pain of it all!
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
