Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack <[email protected]> writes:
"A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by
contrast, generally affect only their parties...
...
The GPL is a contract... As such it involves rights "in rem"
that affects all persons. Congress forbid this kind of
copyright control...
[ various other arguments omitted ]
Here's the big problem with all these arguments: None of the
defendants seem to be making them.
Of course they don't make them! They know that a Rule 41 voluntary
dismissal by the plaintiffs will be coming in short order (check the
track record of the SFLC). So why is this a problem with my
arguments? Just because my arguments are never required doesn't make
them less than true or effective.
The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER voluntarily allow a federal judge to
interpret the GPL on its merits -- even if they must dismiss their
clients case WITH PREJUDICE.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
