David Kastrup wrote: >Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes: >> >> Apart from that, "or later" is utter legal nonsense because absent >> sublicensing, the "later" license terms may come into effect only by >> the affirmative act of the copyright holder and for that nobody needs >> "or later" clause.
Idiot. >Nonsense. The "affirmative act" is accomplished in advance when the >copyright holder acts according to the recommendation: > > How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs > > If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest >possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it >free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms. > > To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest >to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively >state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least >the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found. > > <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> > Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> > > This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or > (at your option) any later version. > >[...] It's "real difficult" to understand that plain language, eh? Sheesh, these anti-freedom trolls are incredibly dishonest and stupid. -- Question: Are you actually claiming that because linux supports NTFS and VFAT it should also defrag them? Hadron Quark's answer: Yes. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
