On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:12:52 -0400, Rjack wrote: > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:34:44 -0400, Rjack wrote: >> >> >>> There is a powerful motivation on PJ and Moglen's part. If a license is >>> not a *contract*, then 17 USC sec. 301's preemption provisions would not >>> apply. >> >> No doubt Eben Moglen is somewhat of a strange duck, but I'm not sure what >> you mean by "their powerful motivation, ie:PJ and Moglen" >> >> Do either of them have a vested interest in this, financial or otherwise or >> is this just a matter of winning an argument/making a point? >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Mainly idealogical. "Free Software" is the grand dream of many > neo-socialists (for want of a better term). Many hate Microsoft with > firm conviction. They blame the very concept of "intellectual property" > as the root of Microsoft evil. I very much dislike Microsoft but I do > not blame their misbehavior on the existence of the concept of > intellectual property. It is the particular form of implementation of > the idea (of IP) through our government's action that is troublesome. > > Eben Moglen's salary (drawn from public charity in the six figures) > that he draws from the SFLC each year probably doesn't discourage him. > > PJ is somewhat like me. She just loves a good old fashioned pissing > contest. I think I can pee farther up the wall than she can. When > I'm wrong I admit it. When PJ is wrong she just censors it and then > maneuvers behind your back. > > Sincerely, > Rjack
Thanks Rjack! I was just curious. -- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
