amicus_curious wrote:
"Rjack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assume I have the source code for the Linux 2.6 kernel.
Suppose I want to use just a piece of it. How small a piece
does it have to be before I'm no longer violating the GPL?
So do you want to "steal" this code and go into business armed
only with a clone of a clone?
So do you want to "steal" code to achieve your socialist dreams?
GPL authors obviously want to "steal" other author's exclusive
rights by intimidation [n.1] with a copyright license that is
clearly an illegal misuse of copyright.
I find it incredible that after listening to seven years of pure
legal gibberish from Eben "a license is not a contract" Moglen, you
still spout crap such as: "So do you want to "steal" this code. .
.". It seems that your ignorance of the law is exceeded only by your
gullibility:
"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006).
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
[n.1] Intimidation is clearly the sole intent of the BusyBox suits
filed by the SFLC. The SFLC will *never*, *never* allow one of
their bogus copyright suits to proceed to the stage where a judge
actually construes the GPL under contract and copyright law.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
