RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> RJack <u...@example.net> writes: >> >>> David Kastrup wrote: >>>> RJack <u...@example.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: >>>>>> OK I'm so fucking tired of this. >>>>>> >>>>>> I use OpenBSD. I use GCC. Use GNU/Linux. >>>>>> >>>>>> BSD is free. GPL is free. >>>>>> >>>>> Don't worry. The GPL license and the "Free Software" religion >>>>> will soon reside in history's trashbin that contains Urban >>>>> Legends. >>>> A few people told RMS when he started. Now it is a whole hissing >>>> and yelling bunch. That they bother is the best proof that they >>>> are wrong. And they know it. >>>> >>> There are still a few nut-jobs out there in Cyberspace who believe >>> the GPL is enforceable, even though the license requires that >>> copyright permissions be licensed at "no charge to all third >>> parties". >> >> More relevantly, there are no judges out there in court rooms who >> believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored while making use of its >> permissions. > > Please provide links to those US federal judges who *do not* "believe > the terms of the GPL can be ignored."
You are changing the topic: of course you are free to ignore the terms of the GPL and it explicitly says so itself. What you are not free to do is ignore its terms _while_ making use of its permissions. > I await with 'bated breath for your documentation. You are changing the topic, namely judges who *do* believe. So please name a few judges who believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored _while_ making use of its permissions. You won't find any. And that's the point. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
