Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> But I agree that it does not seem to be of much importance or
>> precedence. Pretty little in connection with GPL court cases is, since
>
> How come that up-thread you've been suggesting that this suppo
nnection with GPL court cases is, since
they pretty fast boil down to "is there something like copyright at
all?", and that is not relevant to the GPL per se.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
erfectly capable of committing
character suicide without needing help from third parties.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ot in with the BSD groups.
>>
>> "Throw in my lot"? Yep, you use one of the BSDs, don't you? Fine
>> operating systems, so I've heard. My ISP uses one, too. What will
>> it give me that Linux won't?
&g
.
No idea what the current situation would be.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
the appellate court IIRC, so it should set a precendence.
Interesting.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Thanks for the quotations. As I said, contractual damages (which are
>> not applicable for a mere license) are spelled out and thus are not
>> subject to be replaced by nominal charges. In absence of co
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> So you have no clue about the term "nominal damages". Look it up then.
>> Nominal charges are _exactly_ used when a party would have the right to
>> claim _actual_ damages rather than _contractual_ da
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> No, here a case was _cited_ in comparison where indeed a contract was in
>> issue. That does not mean that the GPL is a contract as well, but it
>> means that once where a license is _used_, _then_ the respect
Rjack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Rjack writes:
>
>> Daniel Wallace, the person who was prodded by the court about four
>> times in succession to state an actual case, and finally got his
>> nonsense dismissed for lack of doing so?
>
>
> Ah.
hunted from her magazine for
non-professional conduct including harrassment and libel?
I think I'd rather listen to Wile E. Coyote for legal advice.
> she wouldn't appear to be such an embarrassing nut-job today. (P.J.'s
> probably a Birther,
oose to
pick before even doing the interview seems pretty strange. I know that
I would not want something like that done to an interview of mine, and
people always have asked before the final publication whether I was ok
with it.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-m
some
declaration of intent, like "if you use the plugin interface, we don't
consider the resulting whole as more than a agglomeration of
components". But this is a guarantee just from one side: it mostly will
just work for letting GPL-compatibly licensed extensions (from third
parties
getting a say in what they choose to publish as an interview with him.
> The freetards are the "limousine liberals" of the computer
> world.
This phrase does not even know what it wants to mean...
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
eal). If not, you need to heed the conditions of every single license
on every piece of code. Where you exceed the threshold of mere
aggregation of independent components, the licenses might place
restrictions on distribution of the resulting whole.
That is nothing peculiar to the GPL.
--
David
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Oh, I certainly hope for world peace and aim for it, but I would not
>
> How exactly do you "aim" for it, dak?
>
> You're a parasite living on tax payers money.
I suppose statements like
Rjack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>> Rjack writes:
>>>>
>>>>> GNUtians and RMS have blithely blathered and babbled since
>>>>> 1995 that the GPL and &
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Rjack writes:
>>
>> > GNUtians and RMS have blithely blathered and babbled since 1995 that
>> > the GPL and "Copyleft" would destroy Micro$oft.
>
> RMS' buddy Moglen's d
than that
of Microsoft: the added boon was supposed to be freedom, not usability.
It still surprises me if, in spite of vast R&D budgets and usability
labs for proprietary systems, free products also end up first in
usability.
--
David Kastrup
___
g
" donation to the FSF.
>
> Once again, we have a demonstration that real companies act as
> if the GPL works exactly the way it claims to.
The GPL does not claim to work in any way. It is a license, not a
proclamation. The FSF (and other people) claim it does. And do
not just copying.
>
> No copying need be involved in linking.
At one point of time you need to decide what you want to be arguing and
citing.
> Therefore copyright is irrelevant in dynamic llnking.
> Only static linking falls under copyright law.
ld.so and ld are doing pretty much
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> But we are not talking about copying, but assembling. The act of
>> creating a mere in-memory copy does not cause additional worries, as
>> this is the _intended_ use of the copy. But dynamic linking is not mere
>> copy
ral part of its operation. In that case, you need a license for
this integration.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> An executable image stored in parts is still an executable image. Just
>> because the assembly happens on-demand does not change the intent. As
>> long as there is no conceivable use without the (automatic and planned)
>&g
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Sigh. A program is not a legally responsible entity. The responsible
>> party is the _writer_ of the program. I can't push away the
>> responsibility about what a program of mine does to somebody else.
>>
>&
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> A gun stored in parts is still a gun.
>
> The place to look for rules on copying is copyright law.
> Inapt and irrelevant analogies will lead you to erroneous
> conclusions.
An executable image stored in parts is still an ex
Andrew Halliwell writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>> Dynamic linking delays the act of copying, but it remains an
>>>> essential integral part of putting the program to its intended
>>>
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> I can't put instructions for dynamic linking into a program and
>> blame the dynamic linker or the person running the program according
>> to instructions for the created in-memory copy.
>
> There is no blame or ill
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> It isn't. The essential copy is the copy in the computer main memory,
>> and that is the same whether you link dynamically or statically.
>
> "Essential" copy? What in the world are you talking about? Any
> cop
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Dynamic linking delays the act of copying, but it remains an
>> essential integral part of putting the program to its intended
>> use.
>
> The difference between static and dynamic linking is that in
> static linking
f you construct guns that work with standard ammunition, even if you
never sell ammunition yourself, you'll still have weapon laws apply to
your products.
Even though it is bullets that kill people, not guns.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discus
er all, there is nothing with which the court need then be bothered.
> Freetards remind one of Vice President Dick Cheney. Having been
> thoroughly trounced, they spin and spin in a vain and embarrassing
> attempt to rewrite history.
Well, embarrassment does not seem all to
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Oh, PR people and CEOs are supposed to deliver all the definite answers
>> to all things files in the legal department, when asked unprepared?
>
> Feel free to contract Cicso's legal department, silly.
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Cisco and the FSF now have a written agreement ...
>
> Sez who?
>
> I bet EURO 100 that if you ask Cisco to confirm the details of the
> "settlement" with the FSF you'll get the same reaction a
regard to the GPL adhereance procedure, the
circumstances _are_ different. So the next time the FSF takes Cisco to
court for the same behavior, they need to make the non-heeding of this
agreement part of the suit and can't just restart from scratch.
Other than that, nothing has changed.
--
he eyes of the court.
If the judges weren't able to figure out a claim from that mess, the
laymen here should likely not bother.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
JEDIDIAH writes:
> Courts exist because most people aren't honorable enough for just
> a simple handshake.
If both sides understand something different about what they are shaking
hands for, this need not be malicious.
--
David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> So the wishes of the copyright holder simply cannot be guessed
>> from the license text itself
>
> When the copyright holder has chosen a particular license, all that is
> required from others is to abide by that license when
g of the licensor might still
be different.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> But the extension makes no sense without being put into place.
>
> Copyright law does not require "sense" from a copyrighted work.
> A copyrighted work is a piece of text. The author of a computer
> program acquires
Hadron writes:
> Well, it would seem that the entire GPL issue is not so easy after
> all...
Copyright is not easy. Replace "GPL" by "BSD" or by "EULA", and the
water does not get less muddier at all.
--
David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> That's "if", not "only if". The problem is whether the combined work is
>> more than a mere aggregation of its part so that the original
>> constituents can no longer be told apart well enough to be l
appear in the GPLed code. Attempting to use copyright to prevent
> interoperability is considered by the courts to be a serious breach,
A serious breach of what?
> and is not allowed.
There is no clear and consistent case law with regard to linking stuff.
When in doubt, you will try to ma
Thufir Hawat writes:
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 10:52:41 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> They would clearly like not to have copyright apply to this
>> situation, since then they would not need the GPL to provide its
>> copyleft mechanism there.
>
> Without copyright
e then they would not need the GPL to provide its copyleft mechanism
there. As long as there is no reliable precedence for those cases
however, they would be foolish to voluntarily forfeit the possibility of
the GPL as a countermeasure of other people making claims in that area.
--
David Kastrup
___
However, it may
have _intent_, and the person to vouch for _that_ is the creator, namely
the FSF. Its "spirit", if one wants to speculate about that sort of
thing, may include _unintended_ consequences, possibly merely because
they are unavoidable or a tradeoff.
&g
ectly legal under the terms of the GPL.
The terms of the GPL have nothing to do with it. It's not legal for
anything that comes under the scope of the copyright for the GPLed part.
Whether it comes under the scope depends on copyright jurisdiction, not
the GPL.
--
David Kastrup
_
to do with understanding or not understanding anything
about the GPL.
What is covered is a matter of copyright law. Which is the case with
any software license or contract. Getting copyright law right is hard
and a moving overly complex target, different
chrisv writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> You let your animosities get the better of you.
>
> Learn how to take defeat better.
It does not get better than that.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-di
chrisv writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> I've been working with
>> various kinds of storage media since the middle of the seventies, and
>> dozens of operating systems.
>
> Good for you. The average computer user also has a lot of experience
> wi
chrisv writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> And? There are live disks that install in 15 minutes on a good system.
>> There are live disks that take 2 hours (take the TeXlive DVD). There
>> are differences in layout and effectiveness.
>
> How oddball a situation
chrisv writes:
>> David Kastrup belched:
>>>
>>> chrisv writes:
>>>
>>>> Seriously. You're full of it, and you're wrong, Fuddie. As usual, your
>>>> FUD does not fly.
>>>
>>> I don't think he is wrong
dismissed in a court, does that tell us that property laws are
invalid? It just tells us that the involved parties have a conflict
that is not decided or resolved by the court eventually.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
sed with computers (having written my own
bootstrap loaders and BIOSes and target compilers and whatnot). And
still I was quite unsure what difference to expect when installing
Knoppix on hard disk as compared to running from CD.
And yes, the impression "sluggish and basically not useful" can come
from a live CD. It is nice for a look of _what_ you can do, but it is
hard to judge whether you would _want_ to do it in a reasonable
workflow.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
y rule out most except
technically savvy people, likely those with a good knowledge of what the
wrapped program is about, and those would likely just make do without
your program if it means paying and redistribution restrictions.
So while there may be no legal obstacles in you
ve licensing, they need to
add measures against it. And that lands them with copyleft.
It's amusing that BSD-style software proponents get annoyed when anybody
makes actual use of the liberties of the BSD license.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-di
Rjack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Rjack writes:
>>
>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>> The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in
>>>> nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the
>
. By making explicitly clear that the compiled code is not
covered by demands derived from compiler copyright (by volition of the
compiler writers in addition to whatever copyright law might or might
not dictate), users have one thing less to worry about.
--
David Kastrup
You've never been to school? In pretty much every larger social group,
some people derive a sense of power and self-esteem from pettishly
picking on others. Just because you are mostly confronted with civil
people does not mean that they are the only kind around.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
t just be censoring
provocation, but also hidden in all his provocation and however
misguided, content. He has something to say, however wrong he may turn
out all the time. Rjack hasn't.
Shutting either of them off would certainly be censorship. But the
cases are different.
--
David Kastr
e SFLC was in response to a company
> infringing on the copyrights of the SFLC clients.
And actually, they tried to get a settlement outside of court _first_
each time. And they have hundreds of cases where they succeeded.
So one can hardly claim they are misusing the co
s merits, because the merits are _for_ the defendant. So if
neither plaintiff nor defendant are interested in a decision against the
GPL, the court will never get to a verdict relevant for the GPL.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
g
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> So what is your point?
>
> He believes that one may avail himself of the copying and
> distribution permissions of the GPL while not honoring its
> requirements, because he believes it's the requirements
> whic
Alan Mackenzie writes:
> In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie writes:
>>
>>> In gnu.misc.discuss Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>
>>>> It'd stop a lot of fishing for out of court settlements if the
>>>> accused was
t progress of free
software can't be turned against it and this goal.
So what? Don't you have any personal aims? Why would you not want to
make a difference towards a world that better meets your visions?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
your right. The GPL is not
enforceable. And it says so itself.
So what is your point?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
assessment,
government has to bail us out anyway" mentality. People should take
responsibility for their actions.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Rjack writes:
>>
>>> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [... about me ...]
>>>>
>>>>> He is serious about being an idiot.
>>>>
Rjack writes:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> [... about me ...]
>>
>>> He is serious about being an idiot.
>>
>> Said GNUtian "Huh? You can't be held to a contract you did not
>> sign" dak.
>
>
Chris Ahlstrom writes:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, David Kastrup belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>>
>>> Hey dak,
>>>
>>> "For quite some time I have been living on my own with no fam
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > Here's free advice right from the "GPL Compliance Lab" (my what a
>> > bunch of pompous lunatics):
>>
>> Be assured that your jealou
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> Here's free advice right from the "GPL Compliance Lab" (my what a
> bunch of pompous lunatics):
Be assured that your jealousy is unwarranted. You definitely are more
than their match in that categor
uot; is hypocritical "whining" from
> GNU dittoheads.
You don't have a clue about legal matters obviously, but it appears that
you have lost a clue about what you intended to be talking about as
well.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
of my neighbor. But that
does not imply that he is free to throw the bricks through my window.
Not because I am in control of the bricks, but of the window.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
modifying the Program or works based on
> it."
Actually, _this_ particular clause is in my opinion not likely to hold
up in court literally in all its implications: in practice it will not
be much more use than as an anti-cherrypicking clause that re
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Rjack writes:
>>
>> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> >> Rjack wrote:
>> >>> Your commitment should be voluntary
>> >>
>> >> I'm glad you have moved from seem
In contrast to the GPL, copyright law _can_ be enforced.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Python skit where,
> with no arms or legs left, he is still combative.
Correction: he seems like that to you, since even after you imagine
having proved that he can have no arms or legs, he still kicks your ass.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > I think Rjack has a valid point that a court might well treat the GPL as
>> > a contract in such a case.
>>
>> Huh? You can't be held to a contract you did not sign.
>
> Spitting coff
c.c.ei...@xrexxcopyr.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>>Rjack writes:
>
>>>> Also there is no "evasion of an interpretation of the GPL" since
>>>> the GPL is not even under dispute. It would only be under
>&
Rjack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Also there is no "evasion of an interpretation of the GPL" since
>> the GPL is not even under dispute. It would only be under
>> dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a defense. The
>> cases up to now
ufficiently for that not to be a viable option.
So even if the SFLC carried on, they'd get an interpretation of the
validity of copyright law in general rather than of the GPL. Nothing
interesting in that.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mai
Rjack writes:
> No one can rely on life being fair. A monopolist like Microsoft
> with $19 billion in cash on hand will end up calling the shots in a
> patent war.
"Fine. A shot in my leg. It is not like I don't have seven others.&
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [... GPL ...]
>
>> There is no contract
>
> Let the judges in Munich and Frankfurt know about that, dear GNUtian
> dak.
>
> http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf
> http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfu
e. You can't sue somebody to comply with the GPL since he
never agreed to do so in the first place. But you can sue for copyright
breach: he is without a valid license if he does not meet the terms of
the GPL.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Peter Köhlmann writes:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
>>
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>>> > They are correct Hymen. Section 2(b) is an *illegal* contractual
>>> > term.
>>>
>>> Just for the sake of playing with you: if tha
ion. It is
rather talking about marketing differences.
You are even too stupid to pick articles supporting your views.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ined to you.
The main thing is that it is not in the interest of violators to have
the license voided. It is all they have.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
arty
permits it. The FSF has always stated that they want compliance, not
blood. If they get compliance, that's dandy.
> a voluntary dismissal without any judgment being rendered against
> them whatsoever.
Yes, lucky them, nice SFLC.
--
David Kastrup
__
perfectly real web sites.
You got carried away. Web servers are real. Web sites are virtual.
Source code copies are real. Source code is virtual.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
the license
authors.
If you take a look at Richard Stallman's personal side, you'll find a
_lot_ of political goals and views which have found no reflection at all
in either FSF or GPL.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
like
GPL?
How often does one have to explain it to you before you stop parading
your cluelessness?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
e GPL are there for the sake of the few people who
can actually make a difference. The rest is not affected except for not
being allowed to take away that usability.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
d you are known to be an idiot, so the implication is
> that even an idiot could find the source themselves and save the few
> people taking advantage of FOSS the trouble of doing this meaningless
> repetition.
Money can be gotten at any bank, yet that is not an excuse for
shoplifting.
--
D
there are no reasonably diverging views
about when they are breached, there is no excuse from obeying them. Or
asking me in person to reliquish rights of mine under different
conditions.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85bpsuu9if@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message
>>> news:gnq41q$sr...@blue.rahul.net...
>>&g
here are
>> conditions. What's wrong with that?
>
> The conditions are silly and useless, making the authors appear to be
> the same.
So what? You don't seem to have much of a problem with being silly and
useless, certainly being much more so than the BusyBox authors.
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85fxi6u9li@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message
>>> news:gnq384$27e...@colin2.muc.de...
>
you acquire software when you don't like its license? I know
that I don't. Running into moral dilemmas open-eyed is stupid.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85r61r4nvu@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> If it fails early, it gets returned to the store or to the
>>> manufacturer for credit.
>
301 - 400 of 1330 matches
Mail list logo
