David Kastrup wrote:
To have the GPL evaluated on "its merits", the defendant has to state
that he considers being in compliance with the GPL.
And so, just why does the defendant *have* to state "that he
considers being in compliance with the GPL."? Is there a gun against
his head?
Why couldn't a defendant just as easily claim that Section 2(b) of
the GPL was:
(1) Contractually unenforcible.
(2) Preempted by 17 USC 301(a).
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
