Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:44:05PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > > ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when > > > > there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as > > > > your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized > > > > GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious. > > > > > > Hey Alex, > > > > > > Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and > > > then mail Stevie Balmer? > > > > What exactly do you want me to test and then mail Stevie Balmer, > > dear mini-RMS? > > Your theories. Go sell copies of Windows that you make.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensing/windows.mspx Quick inspection revealed that Windows shared source licenses do not grant rights of reproduction and/or adaptation of Windows (apart from 17 USC 117 defaults, that is). You can't compare it to GPL (or Ms-PL/RL for this matter) with its broad scope of granted rights (all rights are granted). Now please mail this message to Stevie Balmer yourself, mini-RMS. regards, alexander. -- "The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated." -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss