On 4/3/2010 8:00 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "as is evident on the face of the agreement itself ... the GPL, which is the target of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software licensing agreement ... "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)"
Rather, <http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf>: Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005). The quote about contracts merely reinforces the fact that the court can read the GPL for itself, and not rely on cranks who misinterpret it. It does not imply that the GPL is a contract. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
