Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Isaac wrote: > > [...] > >> Nonsense. > > > > Breaking new. > > > > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al): > > > > - > > Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or >

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price: > > --- > Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works Uhmm. Wallace's argument was about collective works to begin with. - Alternative Vertical Analysis In the alternative, if the GPL license is

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Page 2 exhibit managed to escape. Bringing it back. Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Moglen's underling Fontana in action. > > http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx > > > "On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do to fix this, and > this

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price: >> > >> > --- >> > Plaintiff's argument [...] is untenable [...] >> > >> > He he. >> >> You are hopping with glee because a com

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price: > > --- > Plaintiff's argument [...] is untenable [...] > > He he. You are hopping with glee because a commentary butchers the theories of your personal hero? Well, Wallace certainly provides you with fun, it

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price: > >> > > >> > --- > >> > Plaintiff's argument [...] is untenable [...] > >> > > >> > He he.

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Barnes & Thornburg LLP on conspiracy. -- Finally, the Response confirms that there is no alleged "conspiracy," as the GPL is allegedly "public" by its nature with "hundreds" and potentially an "unlimited" number of programmers using the program. (Response at 3.) The allegations support no m

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price: > > > > --- > > Plaintiff's argument [...] is untenable [...] > > > > He he. > > You are hopping with glee because a commentary butchers the theories > of your personal hero? > >

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Isaac wrote: [...] > Nonsense. Breaking new. Barnes & Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al): - Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or rule of reason analysis would apply, Plaintiff also argues that the GPL "purports to defeat the requirements

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Barnes & Thornburg LLP on price: --- Plaintiff's argument that an agreement to license any derivative works at "no charge" is somehow a "minimum" re-sale price is untenable given that the provision does not set a "price" for licenses at all, but rather provides that there shall be "no" price

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Moglen's underling Fontana in action. http://www.ciocentral.com/article/Questions+Still+Abound+over+GPL+3+/171577_1.aspx "On the DRM front, there is little the GPL can do to fix this, and this is a matter that needs to be taken up by the legislature, Fontana said. But, that being said,

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Isaac wrote: > [...] >> Nonsense. > > Breaking new. > > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al): > > - > Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or > rule of reason analysis would apply, Plaintif