RonB writes:
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>> Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
>> And he protests:
>>
>>> Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
>> ...
>>> You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
>>> just denyin
RonB stated in post grrlk7$64...@news.motzarella.org on 4/11/09 8:01 PM:
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>> Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
>> And he protests:
>>
>>> Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
>> ...
>>> You been told many, many ti
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
And he protests:
Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
...
You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
just denying and lying.
OK, readers, I need y
Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
And he protests:
>Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
...
>You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
>just denying and lying.
OK, readers, I need your assistance here.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
This is getting interesting:
(In light of the deadlines, from PACER)
- 03/06/2009 8 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Paul G.
Gardephe from Daniel B. Ravlcher dated 3/6/09 re: Plaintiff
requests an adjournment of the pre-trial conference currently
scheduled f
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack made two ludicrious claims.
First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result,
anybody can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations.
You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate,
despicable, deleterious desperado inde
Rjack made two ludicrious claims.
First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody
can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations. I will discuss
this later.
Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is
unenforceable due to illegality. Let's
After takin' a swig o' grog, Doug Mentohl belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
>> Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither
>> the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may
>> charge for the software or all
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> [...]
>> a summary with references in the Wikipedia. You can read the opinion at
>> http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/Wallace-IBM-7th-Cir.pdf .
>
> Wikipedia side, here's the summary:
>
> 1. [FOSS contributors can't charge] "Thus the GPL propa
Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> > Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither
> > the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may
> > charge for the software or allow any successor to charge ..
>
> That is incor
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the
original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge
for the software or allow any successor to charge ..
That is incorrect ..
"Buy a DVD or CD for 32 or 64 bi
This is getting interesting:
(In light of the deadlines, from PACER)
-
03/06/2009 8 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Paul G. Gardephe from
Daniel B. Ravlcher dated 3/6/09 re: Plaintiff requests an adjournment of
the pre-trial conference currently scheduled for March 18, 2009, at
11:00 AM,
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
[...]
> a summary with references in the Wikipedia. You can read the opinion at
> http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/Wallace-IBM-7th-Cir.pdf .
Wikipedia side, here's the summary:
1. [FOSS contributors can't charge] "Thus the GPL propagates from
user to user and revision to re
Rjack wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack!
>
> . . . whining . . .
> . . . more whining . . .
>
>> Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption. The GPL was
>> put together by a competent lawyer,
>
> I didn't know Richard Stallman was a lawyer. Was that p
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack!
. . . whining . . .
. . . more whining . . .
Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption. The GPL was
put together by a competent lawyer,
I didn't know Richard Stallman was a lawyer. Was that pseudo-fact also
a default assump
Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack!
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>> If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove
>> this. Just find some statute or case law according to which
>> GPL-like permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then
>> perha
16 matches
Mail list logo
