David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack <[email protected]> writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The GPL is a legal delusion in Richard Stallman's marxist mind.
It seems to be a solid enough delusion that Microsoft was very
careful to make sure that its code would not fall under that
license.
Why would Microsoft ever want to give away their intellectual
property under a voidable contract like the GPL?
Duh.
Hm? They already distribute GPLed software.
<URL:http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu>
A simple copy-and-distribute is perfectly alright under the GPL and
is not controversial. The voidable, preempted provision of the GPL
is section 2(b)'s modify-and-distribute term. Please demonstrate
where Microsoft has modified-and-distributed GPL licensed code.
A federal court might not invalidate all the terms of the GPL. Some
contracts have "severable" terms. The GPL is a bilateral contract
with third party ("all third parties") intended beneficiaries. Since
neither party in privity suffers detriment of consideration, the GPL
probably has severable terms.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
-- The GPL is not a contract and the Earth is flat. --
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
