Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >> On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored >> >> That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank >> universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge >> who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave >> him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be >> ignored ("I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ... >> source code ... didn't cure the breach.") None of your twisting > > She is simply saying that the GPL provision of "automatic termination" > on a slightest breach is UNENFORCEABLE you idiot.
Do you still remember what we were talking about? We were talking about the non-existence of judges who are of the opinion that you can make use of the GPLs permissions without heeding its terms. If she considers a breach likely healed because the terms _have_ been heeded after substantial delay, does that mean that she thinks one needs not heed the terms? I have no doubt that you'll form a sentence containing "idiot" or "moron" as a reply, but please do try to remember what the topic was. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss