Rjack <[email protected]> writes: >Rahul Dhesi wrote: >> Rjack <[email protected]> writes:
>> As I asked before: Is this the best you can do? >As I previously stated , it was all I needed to do -- correctly cite >the applicable law. I can't force you to learn or comprehend. You haven't cited law that matches the facts. You cited law that says that if you have an unclear license whose details nobody can remember, then covenants are favored over conditions. I don't see, and the CAFC didn't see, how that applies to a clear written license that repeatedly says "provided that". -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
