In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Pee Jay trumpeted, the Software Freedom Law Center has since
gone to court successfully regarding the GPL multiple times. This,
despite Eben Moglen's SFLC voluntarily dismissing the seven suits before
a federal judge could ever read a single
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
The complaint you refer to elsewhere states that Erik Andersen is _a_
copyright holder, not _the_ copyright holder.
The copyright registration names only Erik as author and claimant, not
Erik et al or some such.
Moglen himself wrote that
In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...]
The complaint you refer to elsewhere states that Erik Andersen is _a_
copyright holder, not _the_ copyright holder.
The copyright registration names only Erik as author and claimant, not
Erik et al or
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is
the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to
sue, not the actual authors.
Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan?
The other authors presumably would have standing to
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is
the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to
sue, not the actual authors.
Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan?
Here
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright registration.
Wierd. Why do they have this standing? It would appear to be none of
their business precisely who is registered as the copyright owner.
Uh silly Alan...
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it
is the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the
right to sue, not the actual authors.
Where the fuck did you read
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it
is the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the
right to sue, not the actual
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you
allege.
I am quite busy with grandkids this week but I an aware of other's
efforts to do that very thing wrt the legal departments of the fourteen
corporate defendants.
I suspect Erik Andersen has
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand?
Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
is hard.
The only people who find the GPL hard are those who
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand?
Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law
which is hard.
The only people who find the GPL hard are those who
Hadron wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand?
Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
is hard.
The only people who find the
Hadron wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand?
Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
is hard.
The only people who find the GPL hard
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hadron wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand?
Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
Peter Köhlmann peter-koehlm...@t-online.de writes:
Hadron wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand?
Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law
Hadron quacked:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means
of violating it.
And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it.
Stop lying, true Linux advocate Hadron Quark.
I find it amazing that
I find
Hadron wrote:
Peter Köhlmann peter-koehlm...@t-online.de writes:
Hadron wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand?
Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA
On 2009-12-18, Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand?
Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
is hard.
On 2009-12-18, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand?
Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA
JEDIDIAH wrote:
Hadron snotted:
(snip lies)
You have zero credibility. Go away.
LOL
A charge of zero credibility, from the totally anti-FOSS, bald-faced
liar Hadron Quack.
Bad rhetoric isn't a sufficient argument.
Hadron got to make a jackass of himself in several groups, today!
--
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you
allege.
I am quite busy with grandkids this week but I an aware of other's
efforts to do that very thing wrt the legal departments of the fourteen
On 2009-12-18, Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Köhlmann peter-koehlm...@t-online.de writes:
Hadron wrote:
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de writes:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was easy to understand?
Yes. The GPL
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you
allege.
I am quite busy with grandkids this week but I an aware of other's
efforts to do that very thing wrt the legal
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
We shall see, in the fullness of time. However, it's not a
fraudulent claim. It would appear that busybox's copyright has
24 matches
Mail list logo
