something
on a legal footing, and letting a court check whether the conditions for
a promise not to sue are met would be paradoxical, and not being able
to let it be checked would render the whole construct legally absurd.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... Pee Jays therom ...]
a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
What part of YOU INDICATE ACCEPTANCE don't you understand retard dak?
ACCEPTANCE is a contract thing, idiot.
Just because
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)?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu
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
Hadronhadronqu...@gmail.com writes:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
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)?
Like
http
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Why would they make the source code available without necessity? Out of
court settlements are private. But the results speak for themselves.
Like
http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Comply with a small number of clearly spelled out conditions, and you
are fine, breach, and you are in trouble. It's not a particularly hard
concept unless you are a troll.
Samsung (several other 'humongous' defendants
in different manners does not move the goalposts.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
the same conditions, exact version
matching appears pointless. Sufficient amounts of matching code should
do the trick.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
that this arbitrary source is the one for which the
copyright has been registered.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source.
A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak.
Since I have not acquired any binaries, there is nothing for me to want.
And that the defendants have
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You can't come into compliance by putting up some arbitrary source.
A source to what exactly do you want, idiot dak.
Since I have not acquired
.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
is claimed.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
tower.
I am not joking.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Yup. That's what makes the GPL relevant if you want to copy or
distribute when you have no other permission from the rights holder.
As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each
claim for relief
getting into compliance, in no time at all.
Really, you _have_ to stop confusing either party's claims with the
verdict.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
title. Only
an utter moron would consider a title like that as a proposal for
antigravity devices.
Yes, appears like a bunch of complete fucking morons suffering from
delusions of grandeur.
Good thing you are not a bunch.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software.
Hey dak, how come that the FSF claimed in court that the GPL is NOT A
POOLING LICENSE (and is merely a vertical agreement between the
licensee
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That's actually why the FSF has to get copyright assignments for
strategically important software: they can't just reimport GPLed
According to the FSF itself, the FSF uses copyright assignments to avoid
joint ownership
that).
That sort of handwaving waffle got Wallace thrown out of court for
failure to state a claim.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Correct statement is
The GPL *ILLEGALLY* purports to establishes a pool of software
because the GPL purports to control the licensee's copyrights with
respect to all
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
How about moving the goalpost in your head from that lie? The GPL
does not demand access to the source code of registered
versions. It demands access to versions _corresponding_ to the
binaries. The registration shows material for which
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That sort of handwaving waffle got Wallace thrown out of court for
failure to state a claim.
Wallace's case was dismissed because Chief Judge Eaterbrook is of
opinion that
*** FOSS is junk ***
People willingly pay
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
The GPL legally establishes a heterogenuos pool of software.
The GPL legally establishes a heterogeneous pool of whacked out,
delusional nut-jobs.
You are not that heterogeneous.
--
David Kastrup
is very clear in its conditions, permissions and implications.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
and up is down. (In the land of GNU)
It is not clear what kind of land you need in order to stop imagining
moving goal posts.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
.
Well, _you_ are spending a great deal of time on that, too, and look
what kind of nonsense we get out of that.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
anything left to do for which people would
remember him favorably.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
infringement.
A promise to licensees availing themselves of the license. Without any
attempt to honor the license conditions, it's for the court to determine
whether to consider the defendant as an unrelated party.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss
choose not to comply, then you don't
have to. You merely have to compensate the non-breaching party for his
expectancy interest. Hint: damages.
That's the case with a contract. But if you choose not to comply with
licensing conditions, the license just does not apply.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
A promise to licensees availing themselves of the license. Without any
Uh retard dak.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
by [blah-blah], you indicate your acceptance of this License
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
if you choose not to comply with
licensing conditions, the license just does not apply.
I'm just curious, what automatically terminate does
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources
by the licensee is to copy and distribute in compliance
with the GPL. There is no partial performance.
Ah! I know what! Let's just deny everything and mooove
the goalposts!
But that's what you do all the time, anyway.
--
David Kastrup
in that respect, for all the years of your
trumpeting around here. That's not all that close to perfect unless
you are living in a fantasy world.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
you are living in a fantasy world.
*You* are living in a fantasy world (where copyright licenses are not
contracts and etc. GNU moronity), silly dak.
Since you are the one batting zero in the real world, I am not all too
of the source.
It has to be pointed out that the owners of old routers have the right
to the _corresponding_ source to _their_ routers as well. No idea about
the distribution structure of Verizon/Actiontec. Could be that they are
having compliance problems again right now.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.
I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant
the defendants of this case silly freetards since they
heeded the verdict.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
. An overruled court decision (even if it does not change
the consequences, namely the necessity to comply) is better than
nothing. The usual crank theories here are so wacky that no court would
dare sanctify them even once in an angle irrelevant to the outcome of
the case.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 4/20/2010 10:09 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
And how many court decisions have supported the crank
point of view while addressing open licenses
. Probably
fewer than proprietary licenses of that kind, though.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
licensed under the GPL, regardless
to who they distribute.
This is a GPLv2 clause. GPLv3 does not use similar wording.
For whatever it is worth.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to
copy and modification without a license, there we are.
You can deem terms in a license whatever you want -- the pen is in your
hand. You can call a contractual covenant
take the ware, the
status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register.
Passing a cash register, however, is not what the law considers a crime.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The
relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the
status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register.
Uh stupid
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of
Uh retard dak.
Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments
again.
http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html
Answers without
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of
Uh retard dak.
Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out
deadline in the 70s or so when things were the other
way round, so if you get hold of material definitely published before
that time by an _authorized_ publisher and without copyright notices,
you might be successful with that defense.
Other than that: slim chance.
--
David Kastrup
that the conditions for which it does so
are not conditions.
Supreme Court vs. moron. Court wins.
You bet it does. And the moron does not even understand the words the
court uses.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss
-compliance. But I don't think that this clause was
ever actively pursued in court.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five?
Judge HOCHBERG: Of course five.
Abraham Lincoln: No, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg!
She's got the job, not you. And what _you_ have been calling this poor
dog...
--
David Kastrup
diligence
can be expected of business people.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
. But there is nothing other than the GPL that grants you a priori
(i.e., without negotiation a different deal with the copyright holder)
permission to copy and distribute source or binaries beyond what is
allowed to you under copyright laws' definition of fair use.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... There is no act of contract formation ...]
Uh crackpot dak.
In den Gesetzen zum Schutz des Geistigen Eigentums lassen sich
insgesamt drei verschiedene Moeglichkeiten feststellen, wie eine Lizenz
begruendet werden
' relations and the case.
It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by
the SFLC clowns.
Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of
the settlements?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and
run once again. The GPL needs a good review by a federal judge.
[...]
We can be open to opinions concerning interpretations of facts and law
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com writes:
RJack writes:
Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't
exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.
If the Federal Circuit's
additional
permissions), but the actual license is quite different. So I see no
base for the AFPL holds - GPL doddle claim. I see no qualitative
difference discussed that would support such a gradation.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
States:
So the appeals court did not overrule the Supreme Court. And nobody
except you claimed that it did, while at the same not being able to do
so. It did overrule a lower court. The lower court not being the
Supreme Court.
Perhaps you need to think about it a bit more.
--
David Kastrup
attribution was not made, so no permission to copy
was available.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
In this case, permission to copy was given depending on proper
attribution. Proper attribution was not made, so no permission to copy
was available.
If you rent me an apartment depending on proper monthly payment, my
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
You are confusing a _contract_ with a _license_.
You're really a crackpot, dak.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizenz
Im Privatrecht regeln Kaufverträge, Leihverträge und spezielle
Lizenzverträge die Rechte des
or implicit agreement between two
parties.
You really have a hard time understanding basic concepts and language...
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
a horse, it becomes the new owner's
responsibility to provide basic care and feeding or face animal
protection laws.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrecht/details/lizenzvertragsrecht/355-der-lizenzvertrag.html
Allgemein versteht man unter Lizenz die Befugnis, das Immaterialgut
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
It is actually not true that it is nur einseitig verpflichtend since
It's einseitig verpflichtend as in
http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/518.html
and
http://vwi.andre-grahl.de/Recht/pdf/03_Script.pdf
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
But throwing out the whole AGB part does not help the defendant one
bit, so there was likely nothing to be gained by contesting this part of
the reasoning.
Das Gericht hat rechtsfehlerhafter Weise die
Prüfung eines
of or
not at its will.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
appealed thereto?
This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the
scared them out of the water. LOL LOL LOL babble.
Why it is apparently this simple to scare sharks is another question.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
The comedy continues to unroll. Uh retarded crackpot free softies. LOL!
URL:http://www.pvponline.com/2008/06/30/interlude-the-adventures-of-lolbat/
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu
or whatever) or that you did not even think about
trying.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Well, if the GPLed source is made available in the aftermath, it stands
How do you know that, silly dak?
Because the version numbers on the links match, right you retard?
I answered that already. There is nothing
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... willful fraud ... ]
You're really a crackpot, dak.
And you've run out of arguments again. Really, it is a good thing
nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you make of yourself.
--
David Kastrup
to fulfill licensing conditions would be active
fraud, not just negligence.
So you are claiming that Actiontec likely does parallel development of
equivalent functionality for the sole purpose of being able to be liable
for fraud.
And you call others silly...
--
David Kastrup
for the sad spectacle you
make of yourself.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
It's really a good thing nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you
make of yourself.
Says GNUtian clown http://www.tug.org/interviews/kastrup.html dak. LMAO!
[Y]ou often have people with a bad judgment concerning
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
LMAO! Uh retard Hyman.
Hyman? Your attention span really is at zero right now. Have you
been drinking again?
Not yet. Do you seriously dispute that you both are crackpots?
If we were, we would still be different
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
It's really a good thing nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you
make of yourself.
Says GNUtian clown http://www.tug.org/interviews
been part of the settlement. Why go to the
trouble otherwise?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
unfunctional, where is the
point in providing different functional sources?
Sure, it is work to diligently verify actual compliance, but there is
nothing to be gained by the company providing different sources.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
to do so make their local changes. If that renders the router
Go try making local changes regarding
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
and report your results back here, silly dak. It won't happen
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... excuse ...]
Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman.
How about doing that yourself?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... excuse ...]
Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman.
How about doing that yourself?
What evidence do you want from
are not free to take it from them without asking.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
is the fork, and which
the mainline.
If you take a look at gcc history, you'll find that the egcs fork became
the main line eventually.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc
the horses here in summer
already.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
license is frivolous
would certainly be to the liking of the FSF.
But it's not ours.
Sincerely,
Hardly.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
them, the courts recognize them.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
to be contracts of one kind or another
rather than mere licenses: shrinkwrap or clickthrough.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
enforceability.
In a way. The text of the GPL states that it is your own choice whether
you accept it or not. So the determination is no.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu
and whatever else soon again, no doubt.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Take your meds, Hyman.
How would that help your running out of arguments?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
So for any component with copyrighted parts from other parties (like
BSD), Apple could not sue for breach of copyright without having the
other parties joining the suit?
Reality check...
Apple's COMPILATION WORK
available in the course of
a settlement?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation
work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple.
How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple
changed?
BSD copyright didn't
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available
There's no reason to do it -- to wit:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
That's a link to a firmware upgrade. This firmware update is
applicable
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it
has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the
GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs
, yadda, yadda.
Don't you have better things to do with your time than to spout
ridiculous nonsense?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
of the license. He can chuck it in the bin and
perfectly legally act like he never saw it.
You can't do that with a contract.
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
101 - 200 of 1030 matches
Mail list logo
