Peter Köhlmann <[email protected]> writes: > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> >> David Kastrup wrote: >> [...] >>> > They are correct Hymen. Section 2(b) is an *illegal* contractual >>> > term. >>> >>> Just for the sake of playing with you: if that were a case, the legal >>> document would be invalid. >> >> Dak, dak, dak. Are you still in Germany? Don't you know that resulting >> from Harald Welte's "enforcement" actions in Germany, the courts ruled >> that the GPL falls under > > Fine. You might try to present a link for that claim > Posting a link to some courts decision which has obviously nothing to do > with the GPL hardly counts as "evidence" of anything. Except for the > suspicion that you are lying, again
Oh, in most cases he is citing actual court cases. They just don't support anything he says. It is just material for head-scratching. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
