DRM Misunderstood
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 08:18 PM EDT
I tried to explain my own disagreement with the GPLv3 in a number of
emails to the linux kernel, but obviously haven't been uniformly
successful.
And yes (responding both to you, and to another poster), I
(That's what Wallace is lacking according to (drunken in a sense)
federal judges Tinder and Young.)
DRM Misunderstood
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 02:11 AM EDT
I explain the emotions, because the legal part of the GPLv3 makes no
sense what-so-ever if you don't
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 02:11 AM EDT
For all anyone can know, you could have written that.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And disintegral components should be GPL'd as well. He should GPL his
grandfather's dead body too. All your base are belong to GNU.
You don't seem to like the GPL very much :)
Anyway, thanks to everyone for the feedback on this - the consensus
seems to be that I
Which mailing list was this correspondence taken from? Looks
interesting to me and I would like to subscribe to it.
On 7/28/06, Andreas K. Foerster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Friday, dem 28. Jul 2006 schrieb David Kastrup:
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Authored by:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Anyway, the author does not understand GPL in either version. The
What? Linus doesn't understand the GPL? In either version? How
fascinating.
author of that diatribe would have his goals fulfilled better by using
the BSD license.
Recall that Wallace action will
