"David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes:
"Hyman Rosen" <[email protected]> wrote
It's just like when you buy a car. You are told that you may drive
away with the car in return for a sum of money, and you accept the
"drive away with the car part" and do so, but say that you do not
need to honor the "in return for a sum of money" part. It's unlikely
that the forces of the law will be amused by the argument in the case
of the car or the GPL.
Well, silly, that is indeed the situation. If you don't send in the
money, you are sued for it. The car is the collateral for the loan,
so it can be reposessed if the payments are not made as contractually
agreed.
Huh, what loan? A loan implies a contractual agreement.
so does the sale of a car for money. Strike "loan" and substitute "debt" if
you are wont to split hairs.
In the case of th GPL, the deal is more like you are told that you can
drive away with the car for free and, if you are asked by someone, you
have to tell them where you got it. Then sometime later, they find
out that you didn't tell someone who had asked. Do you think the law
will go after you with the same vigor?
No, the deal is more like you get the keys to the car in order to test
drive it, along with a contractual promise that you may buy the car for
a certain amount of money if you like it.
You then choose to just make away with the car, making use of the
promise but without paying.
The car is not collateral that can be repossessed. It is stolen good
that can be reclaimed. It never changed ownership.
If it left the lot, you can be sure that it did. I guess you don't have a
car.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
