Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 11:03:56PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://scofacts.org/groklaw.html
Not a single mention of the FSF.
http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/29-Groklaw-and-Censorship.html
Likewise.
You don't need to mention the Free Software Foundation to be a
propagandist for them. Simply promoting the GPL and glorifying the
crackpot idea of "copyleft" is sufficient.
For instance, since the Supreme Court ruled in De Forest Radio Tel. &
Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236 there there hasn't been a single
U.S. Federal Court decision that supports the idea that a copyright
license is anything other than a contract -- that's eighty years of
uncontradicted case law.
i.e.:
"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. ยงยง 101-1332, grants
exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts,
those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant
state law to interpret them.;"Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos
Products Co., 463 F3d 749, (7th Cir. 2006)
Yet the FSF and Groklaw trumpet that "the GPL is a license not a contract".
Claiming that the GPL is a "license" but not a "contract" is pure
propaganda folks. Deliberate deception. Spinning the FUD. Groklaw is at
the very forefront of this FUD effort.
:)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
