Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa >> > Guimar?es wrote: >> > > > If you're going to make an argument at odds with established >> > > > understanding and industry practice then you'll have to >> > come up with >> > > > more than that. >> > > > >> > > > There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who >> > think that the >> > > > GPL works. Go start by arguing with them. >> > > >> > > I can't argue with someone who offers ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUMENT. >> > >> > You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument >> > here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken. That doesn't >> >> No, you are not "telling me why my argument is broken". If you are >> trying, you're not being very clear. Why is my argument broken exactly? > > By trivially continuing it to the next obvious point, it concludes > that the GPL doesn't work. Therefore it's broken somewhere. Figuring > out where is left as an exercise for the students. I really don't care > about the details.
Ah, but this is based on the assumption that the GPL actually does work. The argument was intended to show that it doesn't, and apparently succeeds at this. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
