Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > They are correct Hymen. Section 2(b) is an *illegal* contractual
>> > term.
>>
>> Just for the sake of playing with you: if that were a case, the legal
>> document would be invalid.
>
> Dak, dak, dak. Are you still in Germany? Don't you know that resulting
> from Harald Welte's "enforcement" actions in Germany, the courts ruled
> that the GPL falls under
Fine. You might try to present a link for that claim
Posting a link to some courts decision which has obviously nothing to do
with the GPL hardly counts as "evidence" of anything. Except for the
suspicion that you are lying, again
< snip unsupported claim >
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
