On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 16:46 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > If you mean the omission of the rest of Moglens gospel... well, > > "The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission," > > Objection. I have permission (unilateral grant) to reproduce. ... under certain conditions.
> "in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL," > > Copies are lawfully made pursuant to the GPL's unilateral grant > to reproduce. ... under certain conditions. > "in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms." > > No. You must show that copies are not lawfully made. If they don't follow the copy conditions, they are unauthorized. > "A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid > permission for his distribution" > > I accept plaintiff's position that the GPL conveys valid > *unilateral* grant to reproduce. ... under certain conditions. You're a robot troll, answering again and again as if reacting to certain string tokens with the same logic-void arguments. Regards. -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
