Subject: Re: A must read for license law
From: clay graham <cgraham@newobjectivity.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:02:15 -0800

a big sigh and yawwwn to mr. troll.

look, I don't mind an open discussion, but clearly that is not your
intent. by placing words like "nonsense" in your positions you remove
your self from the objective conversation.

Clay


On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 03:41, daniel wallace wrote:
> Eben Moglen's theory of:
> 
> "Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to
> remain within the bounds of the license not because she
> voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right
> to act at all except as the license permits."
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
> 
> is simply legal nonsense.
> 
> ******
> Here's an email exchange with RMS:
> 
> "I assume, however, that at least some people want the GPL
> to be binding--nothing can make it binding except a claim of
> contract."
> 
> http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html
> 
> -- the respondent's email address resolves to:
> MICHAEL H. DAVIS, (Professor of Law) Cleveland State
> University. Education: Occidental College (B.A.,1967);
> Hofstra Law School (J.D., 1975); Harvard Law School (LL.M.,
> 1979).
> 
> ******
> Perhaps further consideration should be given to:
> 
> "(A``non-contractual copyright permission'' would be some
> sort of license that does not involve a contract I
> suppose, but that is not a well defined term.)"
> 
> http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/diritto/2002-Februa
> ry/000641.html
> 
> -- the respondent's email address resolves to:
> PETER D. JUNGER
> Professor of Law Emeritus
> Case Western Reserve University
> College: Harvard College, A.B. 1955
> Law School: Harvard Law School, LL.B. (magna cum laude)
> 1958
> 
> ******
> How about this:
> 
> "The GPL IS a contract. Calling it a license
> simply describes the type of contract it is."
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@openso
> urce.org/msg01522.html
> 
> -- the respondent's email address resolves to:
> ROD DIXON J.D. LL.M.
> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers University
> School of Law, Camden, New Jersey, Fall 1999 to present.
> EDUCATION: LL.M. (with Distinction), Georgetown
> University Law Center, 1998. J.D., George Washington
> University Law School, 1992. M.A., University of
> Pittsburgh, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1986. B.A.,
> University of Pittsburgh, College of Arts and Sciences,
> 1984.
> 
> ******
> 
> Doesn't anyone outside the academic legal community harbor
> any suspicion that the GPL is broken? Eben Moglen has propounded
> specious legal theories without ever citing relevant case, statute
> or other legal authority supporting his stance on the validity
> of the GPL and his claim that it is not a(n) (invalid) contract.
> 
> Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't
> he come forward with the appropriate legal citations? Moglen is
> a J.D. with a Ph.D. in history and not an LL.M. He would not even
> be accepted as qualified for Professorship at many institutions.
> What qualifies his word alone as "legal authority"?
> 
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3