On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:3ijal.118624$rg3.97...@newsfe17.iad...
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
[...]
All it really indicates is that is was likely a term or result of the
Hi Richard - join in online with us. :)
Anyone: Please email me or the BTIP list if you know of any recent
(past 12 months) GNU videos. Thanks. :)
1PM = GNU hour.
Join with the friendly, productive, Global FSW community,
in the _TWICE_ monthly, Voice over internet meeting,
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote:
The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal argument to
refute the fact that the GPL is contractually unenforceable and
preempted by the Copyright Act.
What's your argument that isn't enforceable?
-Thufir
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't
free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed
programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into federal
court by a band of wild-eyed zealots who
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't free
at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed
programs do not carry any baggage related to being hauled into
federal court by a band of
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote:
The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal
argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually
unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act.
What's your argument that isn't enforceable?
The GPL
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:tvqdnf7tyeli7evunz2dnuvz_g2wn...@giganews.com...
amicus_curious wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:oymdndmtkdtop0vunz2dnuvz_vedn...@giganews.com...
Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written guarantee not to
sue
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:fudbl.727$9t6@newsfe10.iad...
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't
free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed
programs do not carry
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:e2dbl.724$9t6@newsfe10.iad...
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:3ijal.118624$rg3.97...@newsfe17.iad...
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400,
amicus_curious wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:tvqdnf7tyeli7evunz2dnuvz_g2wn...@giganews.com...
amicus_curious wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:oymdndmtkdtop0vunz2dnuvz_vedn...@giganews.com...
Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written
Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote:
The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal
argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually
unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act.
What's your argument that isn't
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Sure, but the hollering about GPL is not enforceable is beside
the point
I am beginning to believe that you *really* don't understand that a
U.S. court will refuse to enforce an illegal contract term against a
defendant regardless of whether the defendant
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
The CAFC's copyright decisions are utterly irrelevant to U.S.
copyright law. The fact that the CAFC ignored it's own precedent
simply demonstrates your confused mind since the CAFC has no
copyright law precedent.
Rjack is assuming that stare decisi applies only to
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxthexg.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gr82or$kj...@blue.rahul.net...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
American common law is historically based upon English
common law:
1. This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, and is in Four
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Sure, but the hollering about GPL is not enforceable is
beside the point
I am beginning to believe that you *really* don't understand that
a U.S. court will refuse to enforce an illegal contract term
against a defendant regardless of
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
The CAFC's copyright decisions are utterly irrelevant to U.S.
copyright law. The fact that the CAFC ignored it's own
precedent simply demonstrates your confused mind since the CAFC
has no copyright law precedent.
Rjack is assuming that stare
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
American common law is historically based upon English common
law:
1. This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, and is in Four Divisions, as follows: . . . 22.2.
The common law of England, so far as it is not
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxtomxt.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gr823h$gk...@blue.rahul.net...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Sure, but the hollering about GPL is not enforceable is beside
the point
I am beginning to believe that you *really* don't understand that a
U.S. court
In article e2dbl.724$9t6@newsfe10.iad,
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote:
Err, why would a jury have anything to say about a settlement? How could
this settlement ever be introduced as evidence in some other case? The
point of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury.
Suppose
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I think you are placing too much emphasis on the term illegal. In
the GPL sense, since it is a civil issue, the term is equivalent to
unenforcable or invalid or any other word that boils down to being
unable to recover damages.
Rjack, he's posting this
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
I think you are placing too much emphasis on the term illegal.
In the GPL sense, since it is a civil issue, the term is
equivalent to unenforcable or invalid or any other word that
boils down to being unable to recover damages.
Rjack,
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
American common law is historically based upon English
common law:
1. This Act shall be known as THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, and is in Four Divisions, as follows:
. . .
22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or
22 matches
Mail list logo
