David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jun/10/busybox/bell-complaint.pdf > > > >> Which makes this case be a plain copyright-relevant-or-not case not > >> involving the GPL. > > > > Why did SFLC attached the GPL to the complaint silly? > > Because their assessment of the situation is different from that of > Bell's.
LOL. Sure it is different. But that has nothing to do with your idiotic theory of ""Answer of Complaint" has to include one detail: whether the defendant has chosen to avail himself of the GPL as a license or not. If he says "not", the GPL is not an issue in the case. And the defendant has a lousy stance explaining what he is doing with the software in the first case. If he says "yes, I use the GPL", he has a lousy stance explaining what he is doing ignoring the terms of the license." regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
