Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Yes, and he quite clearly stated that their product as a whole was >> supposed to have a GPLed component, ergo be a combined work derived >> from (among others) the GPLed piece. > > His product as whole is NOT a derivative work, idiot. > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040207022922296 > > SCO: > > 30. The various identified versions of UNIX are sometimes referred > to as UNIX “flavors.” All commercial UNIX “flavors” in use today are > modifications of, and derivative works based on, the UNIX System V > Technology (“System V Technology”). > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004040118450269 > > IBM: > > 30. Denies the averments of paragrpah 30 as they relate to IBM and > Sequent or to AIX and Dynix/ptx, except states that IBM develps, > manufactures and markets a product under the name "Dynix/ptx".
Cute. Another completely irrelevant quote. Court filings (not even a judgment) for a completely different setting. You are really striking wild lately. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
