Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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 category.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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
Chris Ahlstrom ahlstr...@launchmodem.com writes:
After takin' a swig o' grog, David Kastrup belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hey dak,
For quite some time I have been living on my own with no family to
support
how much taxes (as in X) did
Rjack u...@example.net 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.
Seldom have truer words been spoken:
When have you EVER seen a truly
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net 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.
Seldom have truer words
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
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
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
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Andrew Halliwell spi...@ponder.sky.com wrote:
It'd stop a lot of fishing for out of court settlements if the
accused was no longer terrified
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
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
which are unenforceable while
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 court system.
--
David Kastrup
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 Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
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
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
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net 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
compiler output, constructed of some collection
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-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
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
chrisv chr...@nospam.invalid 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 here.
Well then, you're wrong, too.
And likely a Fuddie as well.
Even if you know
chrisv chr...@nospam.invalid 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 are you willing
chrisv chr...@nospam.invalid 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
with the delays inherent in using
chrisv chr...@nospam.invalid 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-discuss
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 in different countries.
But that's hardly a fault with the GPL, let alone the FSF.
--
David Kastrup
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
___
gnu
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com 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 the GPL is pointless
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 make sure that decisions leaning either
way will not put you too much in harm's way.
--
David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 licensed
differently.
Let's speak
Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com 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
___
gnu-misc
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 hyro...@mail.com 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 required to do
JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet 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
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
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.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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 as in the case of
Verizon.
Wanna
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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.
You are the one
, they spin and spin in a vain and embarrassing
attempt to rewrite history.
Well, embarrassment does not seem all too foreign to you.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
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-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 the copying occurs as part
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 illegal act involved. Those
Andrew Halliwell spi...@ponder.sky.com writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 executable image
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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.
Computer viruses are _exclusively_
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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)
assembly, the exact
. 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 hyro...@mail.com 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
copying
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 the same job.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss
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 don't seem
all too far off the mark...
--
David Kastrup
was supposed to be freedom, not usability.
It still surprises me if, in spite of vast RD budgets and usability
labs for proprietary systems, free products also end up first in
usability.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
GNUtians and RMS have blithely blathered and babbled since 1995 that
the GPL and Copyleft would destroy Micro$oft.
RMS' buddy Moglen's death threats to MS (Free Software and the Death
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
GNUtians and RMS have blithely blathered and babbled since
1995 that the GPL and Copyleft would destroy Micro$oft.
RMS' buddy Moglen's death
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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 that would warrant a Kostenpflichtige
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
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-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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_ damages.
Go to doctor, silly
.
Interesting.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
.
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
.
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?
Respectability.
Does not appear to make much of a difference for a spendthrift like you.
--
David Kastrup
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
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de 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 supposedly
groundbreaking
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
John Hasler wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
It would not seem like a particularly important victory.
I think it is an obvious and predictable victory, but still an
important one as it has a court establishing that the GPL is _not_
the same as public domain
first sales
rights. But not you. Not to the copies you made under permission of
the GPL.
Is that a loophole for the GPL in US jurisdiction? Maybe, but
apparently not large enough to be attractive for setting up a business.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Is that a loophole for the GPL in US jurisdiction? Maybe, but
apparently not large enough to be attractive for setting up a business.
Dak, dak, dak, how do you know that? Please share with us the
methodology of your
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87skdr9gsd@lola.goethe.zz...
Now I would not put it past you to try to set up a business centered
around this purportive loophole. But nobody in his right mind would
care to do important business
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87ws326l79@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Very few have ever succeeded in any business centered around open
source software.
More than those in any business centered against
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message
news:hat7ab$2oo...@colin2.muc.de...
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87ws326l79@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
He made the rather audacious and totally unsupported statement
that the GPL software market is worth billions by now and he
ducks and runs from the challenge that his notion is simply
false.
Huh? There was no challenge. If there had
and doing nothing.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87pr8s4t7b@lola.goethe.zz...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
He made the rather audacious and totally unsupported statement
that the GPL software market is worth billions by now
of the
purported loophole appears to be in practice.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
Uh yes. We were talking about _market_ value of GPL software
business. Now you want to exclude everything for which one has to
pay. How much more stupid can you get?
Well I find it difficult to achieve your
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
news:87k4yzgwfx@lola.goethe.zz...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message
Uh yes. We were talking about _market_ value of GPL software
business. Now you want
.
First sale does not pertain to material you acquired without permission.
If you acquired it with conditional permission, you need to keep the
conditions. Otherwise, you are not in possession of a copy which you
can dispense of according to first sale.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... utter crapola ...]
Facts:
(1)
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical copies of works in a digital
the fact and
are subject to confiscation.
In a similar vein, creating copies according to the permissions given by
the GPL does not mean that I am free to ignore the GPL after creating
the copies.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast. There goes the shawl again!'
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes:
David Kastrup writes:
lawfully made is not something that sticks and covers all in
perpetuity. If I have a contract with a reseller about royalties per
copy, he is selling lawfully made copies. If the reseller decides,
after selling the copies
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Oh, here we go again. That's FUD, Rjack. You're well aware that
that only applies when the other decides to license his code under
the GPL, possibly as a consequence of his (free
for distributing.
What I _can_ do is grab every free neighbourhood newspaper I can get and
sell them on Ebay. But I can't make my own copies or modifications
without permission and distribute them as original works.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss
with that?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
That has nothing whatsoever to do with loopholes or complexity in
the GPL. It has to do with non-free software.
The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release
it under a free license after
Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com writes:
In article 8763acztoq@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
wrote:
The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically
linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was
something normally
Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com writes:
In article 87ws2sybe7@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
wrote:
Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com writes:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
That has nothing whatsoever to do with loopholes or complexity in
the GPL. It has
, but the parties reached is really suggesting a
kind of bilateral process that was not involved here.
The credit for the current state certainly belongs to Trolltech. Any
credit to RMS is not for changing but rather for declaring his position.
--
David Kastrup
. Because of its control-freak urges, it can stymie
competition, which is presumably why Stallman is now calling on the
European Commission to grant what his license couldn't: freedom.
LMAO!
A rather absurd diatribe apparently based on confusing fork with
dual-licensing.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE
BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL.
Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that this is about MySQL being
licensed GPLv2 _only_
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Nonsense. The affirmative act is accomplished in advance when the
copyright holder acts according to the recommendation:
Go to doctor, idiot dak.
One just can't be a party (licensor or licensee) to an intellectual
was asked what he thought of Western
civilization. His reply was I think it would be a good idea.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... the GPL is not a contract ...]
Both courts unequivocally said that the GPL is a contract.
How comes you snip everything relevant from my reply before stomping
your feet again? As I already said: contract law applies since
.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hey dak, why don't you send a complaint to
http://maps.google.de/maps/place?hl=desource=hpum=1ie=UTF-8q=boeblingen+poizeifb=1gl=dehq=poizeihnear=boeblingencid=2520550833099290880
as well?
Standing.
--
David Kastrup
to the reseller), actual damages are not
interesting and not what I will be suing for. In this case, the
defendant is bringing them up mostly as a red herring.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
intellectual, except as a subsidiary meaning.
Its primary meaning is spiritual or religious,
Still wrong. You are confusing this with geistlich which indeed means
spiritual/religious.
or perhaps mental. As I said, geistig is cognate with ghostly.
No. ghostly would be geisterhaft.
--
David Kastrup
putting their savings into the Icelandic state bank had a bit of
a problem when too many tried the conversion at once. The bank ran out
of sufficient access to tangible property.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
and rule according to that finding. What a
higher court does may depend on its revisiting the evidence.
Stop being utter idiot Hyman.
Why? You never have.
You can say that again.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
previous business as Caldera.
They are just sheep in a wolf's clothing cheaply acquired, for the sake
of shedding crocodile tears before the court. Oh, my poor little
cubs!
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
so.
The indication is, as far as I can see, nothing but an indication and
does not get you into any deeper pickle than you are in, anyway.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan their
course of action.
They have a quite better track record at predicting legal cases than the
most
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan their
course of action.
What makes you think Rjack is a legal amateur
seek a legal means
of violating it.
The examples I have seen from them here, however, again boil down to
their problems with understanding copyright, not the GPL.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
, this, or any [other] defendant. The SFLC is the plaintiff. The
SFLC may have _agreed_ to the delay stipulation, but it certainly was
not the one to _file_ it.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
701 - 800 of 1030 matches
Mail list logo
