Alexander Terekhov writes: > 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?
Read the freaking archives already. This is not a new question for debian-legal. You put an entirely misplaced emphasis on what the FSF says about the GPL's nature as a contract or not. Until you show at a modicum of research and novel contribution, I will not explain to you why that is irrelevant. Likewise, until you bother to abide by the Debian Mailing List Rules of Conduct[1] -- including the bits about not spamming, not flaming, and CC'ing people only on request -- I will not help you understand how the law applies. Comprende? Michael Poole [1]- http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
