5 ms·

I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're splitting hairs. The order says the license is a contract that exists, sure. Contracts are enforceable.

__ddd__ 9y ago
Not all contracts are enforceable. I would be surprised if the entirety of v3 is enforceable
- uiri 9y ago
  Out of curiosity: which parts of v3 do you believe to be unenforceable? I think that, given the time, effort, and professional expertise which went into drafting it, that the entire thing should be enforceable.
DannyBee 9y ago
No. The order says that iff what the plaintiff says is true, a contract probably exists :)
- mjw1007 9y ago
  I hope you don't really mean 'iff' there.
  - delinka 9y ago
    Why not? Read it as "if and only if." If you disagree, then explain your disagreement.
    - qb45 9y ago
      I think the "only" part is dubious, i.e. a contract could possibly exist in various other circumstances as well :)
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- mjw1007 9y ago
  I see no justification for the arm of that 'iff' which is equivalent to "if what the plaintiff says is not true, then it is not the case that a contract probably exists".
  - qb45 9y ago
    "If what the paintiff says is not true, then it is not the case that certainly a contract probably exists". Apparently parent is an intuitionist ;)
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    Let's go to the decision: Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s reliance on the unsigned GNU GPL fails to plausibly demonstrate mutual assent, that is, the existence of a contract. Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract. See, e.g., MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d 507, 519 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (concluding that the software owner had adequately pled a claim for breach of a shrink-wrap license). Note the part that: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract." IE if what the plaintiff said is true, it's a contract. I see nothing in the decision that says the court would have found a contract without these allegations being true.
    - qb45 9y ago
      > I see nothing in the decision that says the court would have found a contract without these allegations being true. Parent is nitpicking the different between the court ruling that the contract is likely to exists and the contract actually existing. For the former, plaintiff's allegations are absolutely necessary, for the latter - not so much. In a sense, one can't say that "only if plaintiff's allegations are true, a contract exists" because plaintiff's arguments can be bullshit and the contract may still be valid for other reasons, even if no court would recognize it without proper evidence. Hope that helps. And yes, it is a nitpick on the semantics of logic. Parent understands what the court ruled, the issue was solely with your post being (possibly amusingly) ambiguous to people dealing with too much formal logic.
delinka 9y ago
"...I just think you're splitting hairs." And splitting hairs is pretty much what the legal system is about. It matters. The difference is the defendant said "yes, we entered a contract" and not that the judge ruled "whether you admit it or not, you entered a contract." The former does not set legal precedent. The latter probably does.
otterley 9y ago
It may seem like "splitting hairs," but it's basic legal analysis. Learning when a contract is formed (which is the question at issue here; it's not about the substantive terms of the contract) is covered in everyone's first year of law school. And learning how contract and copyright relate is covered in the second or third year of law school, depending on when you take the course.

__ddd__ 9y ago

Not all contracts are enforceable. I would be surprised if the entirety of v3 is enforceable

uiri 9y ago
Out of curiosity: which parts of v3 do you believe to be unenforceable? I think that, given the time, effort, and professional expertise which went into drafting it, that the entire thing should be enforceable.

DannyBee 9y ago

No. The order says that iff what the plaintiff says is true, a contract probably exists :)

mjw1007 9y ago
I hope you don't really mean 'iff' there.
- delinka 9y ago
  Why not? Read it as "if and only if." If you disagree, then explain your disagreement.
  - qb45 9y ago
    I think the "only" part is dubious, i.e. a contract could possibly exist in various other circumstances as well :)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
mjw1007 9y ago
I see no justification for the arm of that 'iff' which is equivalent to "if what the plaintiff says is not true, then it is not the case that a contract probably exists".
- qb45 9y ago
  "If what the paintiff says is not true, then it is not the case that certainly a contract probably exists". Apparently parent is an intuitionist ;)
- DannyBee 9y ago
  Let's go to the decision: Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s reliance on the unsigned GNU GPL fails to plausibly demonstrate mutual assent, that is, the existence of a contract. Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract. See, e.g., MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d 507, 519 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (concluding that the software owner had adequately pled a claim for breach of a shrink-wrap license). Note the part that: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used Ghostscript, did not obtain a commercial license, and represented publicly that its use of Ghostscript was licensed under the GNL GPU. These allegations sufficiently plead the existence of a contract." IE if what the plaintiff said is true, it's a contract. I see nothing in the decision that says the court would have found a contract without these allegations being true.
  - qb45 9y ago
    > I see nothing in the decision that says the court would have found a contract without these allegations being true. Parent is nitpicking the different between the court ruling that the contract is likely to exists and the contract actually existing. For the former, plaintiff's allegations are absolutely necessary, for the latter - not so much. In a sense, one can't say that "only if plaintiff's allegations are true, a contract exists" because plaintiff's arguments can be bullshit and the contract may still be valid for other reasons, even if no court would recognize it without proper evidence. Hope that helps. And yes, it is a nitpick on the semantics of logic. Parent understands what the court ruled, the issue was solely with your post being (possibly amusingly) ambiguous to people dealing with too much formal logic.

delinka 9y ago

"...I just think you're splitting hairs." And splitting hairs is pretty much what the legal system is about. It matters. The difference is the defendant said "yes, we entered a contract" and not that the judge ruled "whether you admit it or not, you entered a contract." The former does not set legal precedent. The latter probably does.

otterley 9y ago

It may seem like "splitting hairs," but it's basic legal analysis. Learning when a contract is formed (which is the question at issue here; it's not about the substantive terms of the contract) is covered in everyone's first year of law school. And learning how contract and copyright relate is covered in the second or third year of law school, depending on when you take the course.