amicus_curious wrote:
>
> "Hyman Rosen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>> Well you doubless lack the legal education of the district court judge
>>> so the conventional wisdom is that he is more likely to be correct than
>>> you.
>>
>> But he was already found wrong once by the appeals court,
>> so he could be wrong again.
>>
>>> Even so, how do you think that Jacobsen can manage to show "irreparable
>>> harm" in regard to Katzer's use of the code?
>>
>> By showing that Katzer did not honor the terms of the license.
>
> That doesn't seem to be sufficient anymore. That is the whole issue
> here. It once was a slam dunk and now it may be necessary to actually
> show how one
> is harmed. That is where the GPL is weakest and the Artistic license,
> too.
Why don't you just distribute some modified GPLed stuff and say that you
will not supply the sources. Tell the FSF that you do so.
When you do *that* and don't have any adverse effects, you could be
considered right. Until then, you are simply a dishonest lying nimwit.
Which is, BTW, exactly what you are, Bill Weissgerber
Since not accepting the GPL you are reverted automatically to copyright
law.
And in that case you are simply breaking the law by distributing stuff you
don't own
Now tell us that "copyright law" is not tested in courts
Gods, you are really a dishonest lying idiot
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
