On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 17:46 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > [...] > > The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft > > explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they > > were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that? > > What they are stating is this: (MS EULA) > > ---- > * Installation and use. You may install, use, access, > display and run one copy of the Product on a single > computer,
yawn. You're boring. You try to say !a showcasing a. > BTW, given the set-in-stone FSF's stance on legal status of the > GPL (everybody and his dog knows for certain that the GPL is a > unilateral-permission-not-a-contract) I have no idea what > contract the FSF hired lawyers in Indian are talking about. > > Hey mini-RMS, what do you think? C'mon share your thoughts on > that. I don't think anything since I don't know not of what you're speaking. But the anecdotal evidence portrayed by your posts leave you very little credit as far as saying a truthful thing goes. Rui
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
