On 18 Jan 2006 10:31:12 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank Küster writes: > > > I wouldn't be too sure that "set" doesn't have a different meaning to > > lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists. > > > > Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine > > sequence to include conditional execution and loops. > > Regardless of what copyright law defines a thing to mean, contracts > are free to define the terms they use, and where such a definition is > given directly or via parol evidence, it supercedes (within the scope > of that contract) the definitions found in statute or copyright office > policies.
Legal outcome from attempts to override terms of art and legal terms with some gibberish GNUspeak aside for a moment, the GPL is not a contract, says Moglen. Comprehendo? regards, alexander.
