David Kastrup wrote:
RJack <u...@example.net> writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html
The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright
infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense.
In particular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made for use does
not become a copy which may be transferred under 17 USC 109
without the GPL being honored, any more
Samsung and several other defendants disagree with you stupid
Hyman.
Defendants try making an exhaustive list of conceivable theories
(even conflicting ones) for why a complaint should be held
invalid. They need just a single hit to be relieved from
compliance. So what does it tell us when they choose to comply
after all (as they have consistently ended up with so far)?
Just show us the settlement agreements DAK. Just the agreements
please.
Why would they make the source code available without necessity?
Uh. Huh?
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
Out of court settlements are private. But the results speak for
themselves.
Yeah...
For instance see:
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
