Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > were widely touted as proof of its efficacy. One of these days >> > someone who is anti-GPL will find it advantageous enough to finally >> > swat that annoyance. " >> >> You mean, like Daniel "anti-GPL lunatic" Wallace? > > No. I actually meant a defendant not willing to settle, not a plaintiff > like Danial Wallace. > > But thanks to Danial Wallace, the 7th Circuit of the United States now > operates under the following law: > > 1.) [FOSS contributors can't charge] "Thus the GPL propagates from > user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, > nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the > software or allow any successor to charge. ... Linux and other > open-source projects have been able to cover their fixed costs > through donations of time"
(and 2 and 3) Uh, you are confusing the _circumstances_ for a ruling with its consequence. The circumstances certainly do not become prescribed as law. For example, in the following ruling <URL:http://www.clr.org/Bradshaw-Unity.html> there is a lot of circumstances, but most of them don't become subject of a law or legal precedence. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
