eal is more like you get the keys to the car in order to test
drive it, along with a contractual promise that you may buy the car for
a certain amount of money if you like it.
You then choose to just make away with the car, making use of the
promise but without paying.
The car is not collateral that
support or warranty protection for a fee.
[...]
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way throug
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85ocxrkkfj@lola.goethe.zz...
>>
>> Try reading the GPL sometime.
>>
> Well, is it valid?
That's entirely the choice of the recipient. If he considers it
invalid, he do
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
> news:498107b6$0$31864$9b4e6...@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
>>> news:85ocxrkkfj@
ZnU writes:
> In article <8563jzm30h@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup
> wrote:
>
>> Uh no. If a provision of the kind "you may freely redistribute if
>> you heed the following conditions" is not legally valid, and you have
>> no other right to
f.
But the stop the few from doing their work, and the system breaks down
for everybody.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
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:
> [...]
>> We are not talking about a two-sided contract with an exchange of
>> consideration, but a unilateral grant.
>
> Hey dak, could you please translate the following from German to English
> for the sake
es generally relevant and not just for
the GPL, it maintains the ground for free software by winning, and wins
ground by losing.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
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:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> We are not talking about a two-sided contract with an exchange of
>> >> consideration, but a unil
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85k58d226h@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
>>> news:85ocxrkkfj@lola.goethe.zz...
>
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85ab99zkw2@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
>>> news:85k58d226h....@lola.goethe.zz...
te source, I have a million
> legitimate copies that I can dispose of any way that I please, either
> give them away or sell them if I can. The GPL does not restrict that.
Again, "legitimate source" for unconditional copying is a brainchild of
yours, not of the GPL and not of copyrigh
for something which they did not do, but failed to say so
until brought before court. So what? That has so absolutely nothing to
do with the GPL that it is not even boring.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
int. The
main point is that judges tend to collapse loophole reasoning if nothing
except wordsmithing seems to be involved.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
tter
educated to watch what work they are contributing to their company and
under what conditions.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ht license is the very definition of copyright
> misuse.
Namecalling is not a definition.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
urce code licensing. By no stretch of the
> imagination did the CSRG co-opt the closed socialist goals of RMS --
> that's simply revisionist bullshit from Stallman worshippers.
>
> Sincerely,
> Rjack :)
Well, either this "Sincerely" is quite the opposite, or you are
incredibly shoddy and/or stupid in fact-finding.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
er overoptimistic with regard to the actual uptake and
effects. Probably as one consequence he seems to have become quite less
outspoken about the clash of philosophies than he once was.
The optimist thinks that he lives in the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist knows it.
120 times after half
the scheduled time.
So a victory is reclaimed not if the beating stops, but if the beater
can be persuaded to promise merely to keep up his beating rate, and he
does not break the promise all too glaringly.
That's common sense for you. Sorry fo
end up with a net loss
> due to having paid damages to the copyright owner that exceed their
> benefit for the period of violation.
You can't violate the GPL when you never agreed to it in the first
place. You can merely get into the situation that you are without
anything b
Hyman Rosen writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> The GPL can't be enforced at all because it is a license
>
> Don't be silly. "GPL enforcement" means getting people who
> distribute GPLed programs to honor the terms of the license.
Or else. As opposed to a
Rjack writes:
> I have heard rumors that several defendants in GPL cases have received
> attorney fees due to the frivolous nature of the SFLS's cases. The
> SFLC has had to voluntarily dismiss *all* of their suits.
Hearing rumours which you spread yourself does not count.
--
are not talking about either of those specific
situations, it is hard to see what your problem is.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
that it speaks ill of those egomaniacs who want to create such
> a ruckus just so that the world might see how smart they are.
> Pathetic.
Pathetic is not the worst description of your self-contradictory
ill-informed ill-judged postings.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
gt; other people's contributions to projects.
Sure you could name a few examples.
> The old adage "there's a little bit of good in everything" seems to be
> true concerning the SFLC's frivolous and obnoxious lawsuits.
Not to mention your frivolous and obnoxious
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote:
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> but that is meaningless to me.
>>
>> Laws don't depend on you seeing a meaning in them.
>>
> Who is talking about the law?
The
(or its replacement) has a particular
weakness without being able to look at the source code?
Disassembly is quite more cumbersome.
> If it fails early, it gets returned to the store or to the
> manufacturer for credit.
If your whole computing centre gets compromised because a packet logger
could be inserted into the router, return to the store is your least
problem. Being able to determine possible scope of a security breach is
certainly important.
--
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:851vtr64ch@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "David Kastrup" wrote:
>>>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>>
but you need not expect that either the workers or law
officers find that overly amusing.
Ignoring laws comes at a price.
>>> They just complain to the manufacturer and maybe their needs are
>>> taken care of in a subsequent release, maybe not. Who can afford to
>>> le
that cares about
attribution. The copyleft licenses care about keeping the software
alive and in fully useful form for the device in question, at the users'
disposition.
--
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.
>
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:85fxi6u9li@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "Alan Mackenzie" wrote in message
>>> news:gnq384$27e...@colin2.muc.de...
>
here are
>> conditions. What's wrong with that?
>
> The conditions are silly and useless, making the authors appear to be
> the same.
So what? You don't seem to have much of a problem with being silly and
useless, certainly being much more so than the BusyBox authors.
"amicus_curious" writes:
> "David Kastrup" wrote in message
> news:85bpsuu9if@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" writes:
>>
>>> "Rahul Dhesi" wrote in message
>>> news:gnq41q$sr...@blue.rahul.net...
>>&g
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
__
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
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
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
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
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
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.&
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:
> 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
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
>&
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>
>
Rjack writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Rjack writes:
>>
>>> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [... about me ...]
>>>>
>>>>> He is serious about being an idiot.
>>>>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
. 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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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 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:
>
>> 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
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
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
_
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
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
___
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
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
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
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:
>> 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
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:
>> 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
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
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
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.
--
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
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.
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
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
901 - 1000 of 1330 matches
Mail list logo
