David Kastrup wrote:
> > Each party to the GPL contract can sue for non-compliance, retard.
> Non-compliance with which obligations, my dearest Alexander?
> I quote again (sorry for the shouting, but it is in the original):
> NO WARRANTY
No warranty doesn't equate to impunity to breach the contract, retard.
> > An intellectual property license is a contract.
> But we are talking about a "license" which _reduces_ the default
> rights of the recipient, which actually is a perversion of the term
> "license", and tries to gain contractual status with "click-through"
I'm not talking about EULA contracts. They are not intellectual
property licenses, because (typically) they don't convey any rights
reserved to IP owners at all.
> In contrast, the GPL states clearly:
It clearly misstates the copyright law (by ignoring 17 USC 109 and 117).
But what it means apart from misstatement, is that the GPL acceptance
is manifested by exercising exclusive rights granted under it.
> > In re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th
> > Cir. 2003) (â??If a breach of contract (and a copyright license is
> > just a type of contract) . . . â??); see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi
> > Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (â??Whether express
> > or implied, a license is a contract"). -----
> Anyway, even if your interpretation of the license as being a covert
> contract (although it explicitly states that you are not required to
> accept it, unlike the Aimster case) were correct, the contractual
> obligations of the copyright holder are squat, as explicitly expressed
> in the GPL.
Contractual disclaimer of warranty doesn't equate to impunity to breach
the contract, stupid.