On 2 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/Circuit/fed/opinions/97-1425.html > > > > Reasonable man and estoppel are linked, and a choice quote: > > > > A delay of more than six years raises a presumption that it is > > unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial. > > > > _Wanlass_ (the URL above) refers to _Kodak_ 114 F.3d 1547, 1559, 42 USPQ2d > > 1737, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 1997 where they quote "known or in the exercise of > > reasonable diligence should have known" > > This case is only about laches, which is not what I'm talking about. > In any case, let's take a step back. What exactly is your motive > here? > > RMS's is to keep the GPL strong, so that EvilCorp can't twist and > evade it in a way that hurts Debian and everyone else.
Is it? What does Debian have to do with EvilCorp that Red Hat or Slackware doesn't? Why is Debian getting singled out? Why haven't I seen the same thing on the FreeBSD lists? It looks as if RMS's goal it to make Debian his own private whipping boys again, just like the crusade about non-free being too easily available. > Manoj's seems to be to keep things simple, to avoid needless makework, > to keep the distribution clean and lean. > > Mine is to try and understand all sides of this as best as I can, in > the hopes that people can get along. Then why are you the second most inflammatory poster on this thread? Why have you descended to cheap shots and calling others' motives into question? I have done so as a matter of personal style: my tone hasn't changed in the better part of a year around here (actually longer, but I have had a few hiati), but >I< didn't say I had the goal of being a peacemaker. > All of these seem to be good goals to have people pursuing. Assuming that the goals are the ones ascribed. > But your goal seems to be to prove that the GPL cannot be enforced > against EvilCorp in certain cases where we all should hope it can be. I regret that I cannot adequately describe my reaction to this: "derisive laughter" just doesn't make it to within five or six orders of magnitude of my reaction. I won't even dignify this part with a response, save the fact that I was wrong previously about the last refuge of the incompetent: I have seen further down the chain and realize that it was but a rest stop in a neverending road of attacks on the messenger to cover the fact that the attacker either has no more or wants no more refutation. > > Thomas > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude... John Galt ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
