On 2006-09-28, David Kastrup gnu.org> wrote:

Clauses usually aren't that blatantly illegal. If they are,
you'd complain during the license negotiation process.

It would be strange for a licensee to say "hm, we can't do this
because of clause X, but well clause X violates antitrust law
so let's do it anyway".

Typically what happens is the licensee has an understanding of what
he's allowed to do, and the licensor gets upset because they think
that understanding is wrong. They go to court, the licensor says
"this clause is to be interpreted as so-and-so", and the
licensee says "no way, that interpretation would mean we are
in breach of contract; therefore the clause is copyright misuse,
it violates antitrust law and so the clause should be declared
null and void".

Arnoud Engelfriet writes:

You mean as in "none of the large legal departments of several
multibillion companies adhering to the license condition ever thought
it worthwhile to ever contest this in court" and "never contested
successfully in court"?

I am afraid that your definition of "blatantly illegal" does not quite
meet the customary one.

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:

There's a zillion plus one of copyright holders in Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux
(and most are with unknown addresses, if reachable at all), retard dak.

The GPL is non-negotiable contract.

Alexander Terekhov writes:

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

And the sky is green in Bochum, Kriemhildstraße.

Uh moron. Okay, I'll repeat:

http://jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf

Hey dak, would you please share your understanding (in English words)
of German phrase "Vertragsverhältnis zwischen". And what the heck is
meant to be accepted "durch Vorname der Zustimmungsbedürftigen
Handlung" (please be so kind and translate that phrase to English as
well). Pg 11. Finally, please elaborate on "vertraglichen Pflichten"
and "Vertragspartei" which you can find on Pg 14. Thank you very much
in advance.

regards,
alexander.

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Why are you cross-posting to alt.comp.freeware?

Susan

Alexander Terekhov writes:

Susan Bugher wrote:

Well, because I'm of opinion that due to blatant misuse of copyright,
publicly available [L]GPL'd stuff is effectively in (quasi) public domain
(copyrights in publicly available [L]GPL'd works are unenforceable). See

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise15.html

Does public domain qualify as freeware in your view?

(To GNUtian ams on gnu.misc.discuss: go to doctor.)

David Kastrup wrote:

Why are you cross-posting to alt.comp.freeware?

Susan

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

It does *if* it meets these other conditions:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/WareGlossary.php
Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no cost,
monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish.

Note the exclusion of apps with non-monetary costs. Spyware, Adware etc.
etc. etc. etc. etc. are not Freeware per alt.comp.freeware's definition
of the term (and mine).