Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 4/1/2010 4:37 PM, RJack wrote: > > Do you make this stuff up on the fly or do you sit > > around and dream about it first? > > On the fly, generally, since your errors are simple > enough to explain and refute without much effort.
You mean like refuting "the GPL is a license not a contract" nonsense by FSF's own words in court of law? http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "as is evident on the face of the agreement itself ... the GPL, which is the target of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software licensing agreement ... "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract "In law, a contract is a binding legal agreement that is enforceable in a court of law[1] or by binding arbitration. That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises with a specific remedy for breach." regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
