Raul Miller writes: > On 5/17/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> My layperson's interpretation of the rationale is that since the >> contract is specific to the parties, it defines their rights and >> responsibilities -- within the bounds of the contract -- rather than >> using those defined by statute. > > In the context of the GPL, the responsibilities have to do > with seeing that copyright terms are granted. > > It's hard for me to imagine how this can make sense > without referring to the copyright statutes.
A court can rule on whether a contract permits or forbids an action without addressing the question of what the action later implies. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
