Rjack <u...@example.net> writes: >Here's my citation:
>...abandonment of a contract can be accomplished only through mutual >assent of the parties, as demonstrated by positive and unequivocal >conduct inconsistent with an intent to be bound.... [ no public link ] That citation will not help you. You are between a rock and a hard place here, and not all the law in the Second Circuit will save you. If you argue that there is a contract and this contract continues to be in effect, then the contract by its own terms causes permission to copy to automatically terminate as provided by the contract. Any copying beyond that point is copyright infringement -- the GPL itself says so. So the defendant is SOL if he continues to copy. You other alternative if so argue that there is a contract and it's rescinded or abandoned. But then as soon as the contract is rescinded or abandoned, there is no longer any permission to copy. Any copying beyond that point is copyright infringement. The defendant is SOL again. I think the reason for your confusion is that you took the idea termination of the right to copy, provided for in the GPL, and decided that that must mean rescission of a contract. At that point you went off on a wild tangent quoting irrelevant cases. If any of your arguments were viable, we would have seen one or more defendants make those arguments. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
