🚀 go-pugleaf

"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message 
news:44D05746.919A1DAA@web.de...
>
> Ferd Burfel wrote:
> [...]
>> A contract indeed can not bind a "non-party", but a "third-party" does 
>> NOT
>> always equal "non-party".  While a "third-party" that does not accept the
>> terms of the license (or is not even aware of it) would be a "non-party", 
>> a
>> "third-party" that DOES accept the license would become a "party" to the
>> license by accepting it's terms, and would therefore be bound by it.
>
> That's all fine and dandy,

Glad you agree.

> Contracts, by contrast,
> generally affect only their parties; strangers may do as they please,

That's all fine and dandy, too.  But a third-party choosing to accept the 
terms of the license is no longer a stranger, and becomes a party to it.

> 92. It can be argued that this might change if, in effect, no third
> party can avoid being bound by the contract terms in order to use the
> information.

Something like the way no third-party can avoid being bound by the terms of 
the GPL in order to receive permission to modify and distribute GPLed code? 
Is Wallace really helping his case by mentioning this?

All throughout this case, Wallace seems to be cherry-picking quotes from 
various cases out of context, and applying his own legal conclusions, even 
if they are sometimes contrary to the case he is quoting.  He has ignored 
strong hints from the court as to changes he might make to be sucessful. 
It's almost like he is trying to lose for some reason.  A backhanded attempt 
to create a GPL court win?

He really should have sought professional help before filing this case. 
Legal or otherwise.