Re: Settlements
David Kastrup wrote: Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to copy and modification without a license, there we are. You can deem terms in a license whatever you want -- the pen is in your hand. You can call a contractual covenant a condition until you turn blue in the face but it won't magically make it a condition or scope of use restriction. You can call a dog a cat forever but the dog won't suddenly stop barking and start meowing while climbing trees. A U.S. appeals court can issue a ruling directly contradicting the U.S. Supreme Court but it will only signify an appeals court in error: [U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). U.S. appeals court decisions are routinely overturned by the Supreme Court. Only a constitutional amendment or appropriate legislative change may overturn a holding of the Supreme Court. This is the law of the land whether we like it or not: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). The only two legal mechanisms in a copyright license that can cause a use to conflict with an exclusive right are a scope of use restriction or an unsatisfied condition precedent. Neither occurred in the Jacobsen case with respect to the broadly worded Artistic License grant. Keep calling your dog a cat DAK and see if it stops barking and begins to meow and purr. It won't -- but keep trying anyway. You can't _both_ claim that the license permits copying and modification while at the same time claiming that the conditions for which it does so are not conditions. Sure I can. I understand the difference between a covanent and a condition. Judge White (correctly) said the same thing: Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim properly sounds in contract and therefore Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success on the merit of his copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm. Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins. You bet it does. And the moron does not even understand the words the court uses. I'm glad you agree. I can't help it that GNUtians are ignorant. They'll just have to see the light on their own. Hopefully not while they continue futilely attempting to convince their dog it's a cat. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to copy and modification without a license, there we are. You can deem terms in a license whatever you want -- the pen is in your hand. You can call a contractual covenant a condition until you turn blue in the face but it won't magically make it a condition or scope of use restriction. Its not a scope of use restriction because the scope of use is not restricted but extended. The conditions for the extension are spelled out. If you don't meet them, you are back to the normal usage rights under copyright law. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Copying and modification without license conflicts with the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The only two legal mechanisms in a copyright license that can cause a use to conflict with an exclusive right are a scope of use restriction or an unsatisfied condition precedent. The GPL and related free software licenses don't introduce any conflicts with exclusive rights. They _lift_ some usage constraints that would, without a license, constitute a conflict with exclusive rights. There are conditions under which these additional permissions otherwise prohibited by the exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute are given. All your silly word games don't change that. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 3/1/2010 9:53 PM, RJack wrote: Copying and distribution are *expressly* permitted by the Artistic license with neither scope of use restriction nor condition precedent to limit the licensed rights No, that's wrong according to CAFC: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package. It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with this decision. In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins. When did you finally realize that simply using a phrase like provided that cannot magically turn a contractual covenant into a scope of use restriction or condition precedent? Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted Aprovided that@ the conditions are met. Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a condition. It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with this decision. In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins. The Supreme Court stated that fact with crystal clarity: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The only use here is copying and distribution, part of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106. Copying and distribution may only be carried out by others with permission from the rights holders, and in the case of the Artistic License and the GPL, such permission comes only when conditions are adhered to. When those conditions are not met, the copying and distribution will constitute infringement. The CAFC has issued its decision. That decision stands regardless of whether you believe it contradicts the SUpreme Court, until the Supreme Court itself says otherwise. It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with this decision. In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
On 3/2/2010 8:35 AM, RJack wrote: A U.S. appeals court can issue a ruling directly contradicting the U.S. Supreme Court but it will only signify an appeals court in error Until the Supreme Court itself says otherwise, the ruling of the appeals court stands, regardless of how much you hate and disagree with the decision. In the battle of crank vs. court, court wins. Always. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted Aprovided that@ the conditions are met. Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a condition. Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a condition. See, e.g., Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911) The CAFC further ruled: The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes... How on earth can disclosure and explanation of changes come before (be a condition precedent) to the license grant? As discussed by The Supreme Court of California, the term provided may or may not indicate a condition, noting that there is no magic in the term [provided], and the clause in a contract is to be construed from the words employed and from the purpose of the parties, gathered from the whole instrument. Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 115 P. 743, 744 (Cal. 1911) (quoting Boston Safe Dep. and Trust Co. v. Thomas, 53 P. 472 (Kan. 1898) (finding that, based on a reading of an entire provision, a clause containing provided, that was not a condition)). It is undoubtedly true, as claimed by appellant, that stipulations in a contract are not construed as conditions precedent unless that construction is made necessary by the terms of the contract. ( Deacon v. Blodget, 111 Cal. 418, [44 Pac. 159]; Antonelle v. Lumber Co., 140 Cal. 318, [73 Pac. 966].) There are also well considered cases holding that provided does not necessarily impose a condition. In Hartung v. Witte, 59 Wis. 285, [18 N. W. 177], it is said: But the words, upon the express condition, as here used, or the words if it shall so happen or provided however and the like do not always make a condition, and it is often a nice question to determine whether it is a condition or a covenant and courts always construe similar clauses in a deed as covenants rather than as conditions, if they can reasonably do so. (2 Washburn on Real Property, 4.) In Stanley v. Colt, 72 U.S. 119, [18 L. Ed. 502], it is declared that The word provided though an appropriate word to constitute a common law condition does not invariably and of necessity do so. On the contrary, it may give way to the intent of the party as gathered from an examination of the whole instrument, and be taken as expressing a limitation in trust. Similarly in Woodruff v. Woodruff, 44 N. J. Eq. 353, [16 Atl. 6, 1 L. R. A. 380], it is said: While the words provided nevertheless and upon the following conditions are appropriate words to create a condition, they do not of necessity create such an estate. They and similar words, will give way when the intention of the grantor as manifested by the whole deed, is otherwise, and they have frequently been explained and applied as expressing simply a covenant or a limitation in trust. Indeed, the decisions are uniform to the point that, while ordinarily the word provided indicates that a condition follows, as expressed in Boston S. and D. v. Thomas, 59 Kan. 470, [53 Pac. 472], there is no magic in the term, and the clause in a contract is to be construed from the words employed and from the purpose of the parties, gathered from the whole instrument. The Restatement (Second) of Contracts Article 224 states: Condition Defined: A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a contract becomes due. Obviously an event that depends on performance of a contract cannot occur *before* performance of the contract becomes due. This result is called an impossible condition in contract construction and is strictly construed *against* the drafter. The ruling of the CAFC reminds me of this limerick ridiculing the theory of special relativity: There was a young lady named Bright, Whose speed was far faster than light. She went out one day, In a relative way And returned the previous night! Arthur Reginald Buller See also: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936 http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15939 regards, alexander. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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.)
Re: Settlements
On 3/2/2010 10:16 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: How on earth... Be sure to get back to me once the CAFC decision is reversed. Meanwhile, the straightforward conditions of the AL, and the GPL by extension, hold. Anyone wishing to avail themselves of the permission to copy and distribute granted by those licenses must follow the conditions of those licenses. If they copy and distribute covered works without meeting the conditions of the licenses, then they are infringing. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted Aprovided that@ the conditions are met. Under California contract law, provided that typically denotes a condition. “Under California contract law, “provided that” typically denotes a condition. See, e.g., Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911)” The CAFC further ruled: “The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes...” How on earth can “disclosure and explanation of changes” come before (be a condition precedent) to the license grant? Causality does not necessarily imply temporal order in the legal world, because the legal _meaning_ of an act might sometimes be established only at a later point of time. Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register. Passing a cash register, however, is not what the law considers a crime. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Hey dak, a nice summary... Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register. Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken. http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=37040 http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=3567 Sehr geehrter Ratsuchender, wenn Sie den Supermarkt noch nicht verlassen haben, ist dies ein Indiz dafür, dass Sie nur einen versuchten Diebstahl begangen haben, von dem Sie noch strafbefreiend zurücktreten konnten. Allerdings kommt es für die Beurteilung auch auf die Größe der Ware an, denn befand sich die Beute versteckt im Einkaufswagen, haben Sie den Diebstahl nur versucht. Handelte es sich dagegen um sehr kleine Gegenstände, die Sie in der Jacke versteckt hatten, dann liegt ein vollendeter Diebstahl vor. Von diesem ist ein Rücktritt nicht möglich. Sie sehen, dass es bei der rechtlichen Beurteilung auf die sehr genaue Kenntnis des Sachverhalts ankommt. Insgesamt haben Sie sich erst einmal mit Ihrem Schreiben an den Supermarkt richtig verhalten. Sie können auch ersteinmal eine mögliche Vorladung der Polizei abwarten. Das würde sich nicht nachteilig für Sie auswirken. Insgesamt rate ich Ihnen zu einem anwaltlichen Beistand. Gerne stehe ich Ihnen hierfür zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Marcus Alexander Glatzel Rechtsanwalt regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register. Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken. http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=37040 We have other actions establishing the intent of the persons here. But anyway, you'll notice that only the Anwalt talks about complete theft, while the only relevant opinion is that of the court, and the court does not talk about theft in its description of the complaint, but the taking of a non-own moveable object from somebody else with the intent of making it his own against the law. And the Anwalt is not exactly acting without self-interest, as he writes: Ich stehe Ihrem Sohn natürlich jederzeit für seine Verteidigung zur Verfügung., offering to defend the purportive thief for a fee. So he has an interest in making the incident appear worse than it is. So you manage, again, to dig up a quote that does not actually help your argument. I have actually once had an attempt of an interview by a detective that had imagined me to have pocketed a can of nuts (I had taken a look at its prize tag, decided that it was overprized and put it back). The detective waited until after I had passed the cash register. Not his lucky day I guess because me blowing my top was likely not all too well for keeping a low profile. But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of knowing whether I had merely been employing my pocket because I was running out of space in my hands or because I intended to steal something. That detective obviously knew that. And the court on that page you cite obviously knew it as well which is why he does not talk about theft but something quite more iffish. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
NYC LOCAL: Tuesday 2 March 2010 NYLUG Programming Systems Workshop: Squeak
blockquote what=official NYLUG Workshop / Hacking Society announcement note=This is a regular event. The NYLUG Workshop / Hacking Society meets every other Tuesday. edits= From: NYLUG Announcements i...@nylug.org To: NYLUG Announcements nylug-annou...@nylug.org Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:20:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [nylug-announce] NYLUG Workshop / Hacking Society, (Smalltalk, C++, Python) TOMORROW March 2 6:00PM-8:00PM X-BeenThere: nylug-annou...@nylug.org Reply-To: Announcements from NYLUG nylug-annou...@nylug.org This is a reminder for the event detailed below. WORKSHOP / HACKFEST Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 Time: 6:00pm Duration: 2 hours Location: NY Public Library Hudson Park Branch, 66 Leroy St., NY NY 10014 Topics: This week, we're going to continue looking at Smalltalk via Squeak. There may also be some discussion related to the C++ online workshop taking place on nylug-talk, and general discussion about Python. We'll be working through example code. Bring something to discuss! There's a blackboard, chalk, and Internet access. Notebook computers are helpful but not required. All levels of Python experience from totally new to experienced welcome! Resources: * Squeak Smalltalk environment http://www.squeak.org/ * NYLUG-Talk list http://nylug.org/listinfo/nylug-talk/ Map Directions: http://nylug.org/hackcalendar We meet in the basement. Enter the library and head to the back. If the door is closed when you arrive you can ask the manager of the library for the keys to the room if you're comfortable opening up the basement, or you can wait for some of the others to arrive. Description: We will continue meeting on a bi-weekly basis at the Hudson Library at 66 Leroy St New York, NY 10014. It is helpful, but not necessary to have a notebook computer. The WiFi at the library works now. Mailing List: We have a mailing list! Join it here: http://nylug.org/mailman/listinfo/hack or send mail to: hack-requ...@nylug.org with a Subject: subscribe There is also an RSS feed for the workshop mailing list at: http://nylug.org/mlist/hack.rss IRC Channel: On Freenode, in #nylug-python . Stop by #nylug also. The Next Meeting After This Meeting: The following Workshop will be held on: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 6:00 PM __ Hire expert Linux talent by posting jobs here :: http://jobs.nylug.org nylug-announce mailing list nylug-annou...@nylug.org http://nylug.org/mailman/listinfo/nylug-announce /blockquote Distributed poC TINC: Jay Sulzberger secret...@lxny.org Corresponding Secretary LXNY LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization. http://www.lxny.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register. Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken. http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=37040 regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register. Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken. http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/forum_topic.asp?topic_id=37040 We have other actions establishing the intent of the persons here. But anyway, you'll notice that only the Anwalt talks about complete theft, while the only relevant opinion is that of the court, and the court does not talk about theft in its description of the complaint, but the taking of a non-own moveable object from somebody else with the intent of making it his own against the law. Uh moron dak. http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/242.html http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebstahl regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of Uh retard dak. Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments again. http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html Answers without questions? Are you trying to beat your own track record of posting irrelevant links? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of Uh retard dak. Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments again. http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html Answers without questions? Go to doctor dak. http://www.ladendiebstahl.de/Strafgesetz.htm Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der Diebstahl vollendet. http://www.gutefrage.net/frage/ist-das-ladendiebstahl Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der Diebstahl vollendet. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of Uh retard dak. Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments again. http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html Answers without questions? Go to doctor dak. http://www.ladendiebstahl.de/Strafgesetz.htm Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der Diebstahl vollendet. http://www.gutefrage.net/frage/ist-das-ladendiebstahl Sobald ein Täter eine Ware in seine Kleidung oder in eine mitgeführte Tasche gesteckt hat, ist sein Gewahrsam begründet und damit der Diebstahl vollendet. You are again citing a comment rather than the law. And the particular sentence makes little enough sense: As soon as a perpetrator puts an item into his clothes or a carried bag, his confinement is justified, and thus the theft is completed. That's shaking the order and dependencies of the acts up rather absurdly. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Settlements
David Kastrup wrote: [...] You are again citing a comment rather than the law. And the particular sentence makes little enough sense: You're incurable, stupid dak. http://heinrich.rewi.hu-berlin.de/examinatorium/BT/Internet21.pdf http://www.nomos-shop.de/_assets/downloads/Kindh%C3%A4user%20StGB%20BT2_%C2%A7%202%20Diebstahl.pdf regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
