Hyman Rosen wrote: [... GPL invalidity ...]
> That paper is a link to a critique of the decision, > not to a court decision. The court decision held that > without accepting the GPL, there is no other right to > distribute. Until an actual other case or appeal finds > differently, the decision stands, regardless of whether > or not some commenting judge likes it, and the GPL is > legal and distribution of GPLed software is an implicit > agreement to the license. Suppose that the GPLv4 will include a "condition" to make available not only the source code but also a bunch of child pornography photos. According to drunken bavarian judges from district court Munich I (senselessly parroting bizarre "legal construction" offered by Welte's attorneys from ifross.de), not making available child pornography would then result in copyright liability just like not making available source code. Utter idiots. Just like you, Hyman. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
