On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:50:44PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:25:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> >> >> He doesn't need to learn of the patch first in the case of the > >> >> >> generic > >> >> >> call. Additionally, the idea is not to help users get away with as > >> >> > > >> >> > Well, i am somehow doubtfull that sucha generic call is legally > >> >> > binding, so > >> >> > your point is moot. How can upstream guarantee that the modifier did > >> >> > receive > >> >> > the call and convince the judge of it ? > >> >> > >> >> Can you provide any evidence that such a generic call not legally > >> >> binding? Or are you just somehow doubtful, without any reason? > >> > > >> > Well, this is common sense, so i guess it would be upto you to prove the > >> > contrary. But don't fear i will be getting legal advice this afternoon, > >> > altough not IP specific one, and i will tell you what comes of it. > >> > >> I'm claiming that the license should be read as saying what it plainly > >> says, and that other implied conditions should not be read into it. > >> I'm perfectly willing to believe such implied conditions should be > >> read -- but I want to see evidence of such. The claim that it's > >> common sense, when that position appears uniquely yours, is unpersuasive. > > > > Please read and reponsd to the other thread i started. I asked for legal > > advice, even if not specialized one, on this subject, and the reply i got > > confirmed my intuition. Now, it is your turn to find legal evidence to > > contradict it. > > Yes, you say you got legal advice. But you don't say what it was! > Not even over there. The specifics of that advice make it useless. > Was it just for your jurisdiction? Well, choice-of-law makes that > OK.
Well, in any case, it is ways better than what you are providing. So, i expect you to shut up about this, or provide the same kind of weight behind your words. I will not accept anymore wild speculation from your part that is contrary to common sense, my own intuition, and my legal counsel. > Even so, how does the unenforceability of a license justify ignoring > the wishes of the author? It does not, but that hardly make it non-free. Friendly, Sven Luther