Alexander Terekhov wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov writes:
Why would Cisco *NOT* consent to the dismissal of a lawsuit against
Cisco with prejudice?
Why *WOULD* the plaintiffs consent to the dismissal of a lawsuit against
Cisco with prejudice?
Because the judge (at
Rjack wrote:
7 wrote:
Rjack the stupid 1 wrote:
Sincerely,
Liar!
Rjack :)
More like Idiot!
I agree! People should just kill-file that stupid old troll Rjack.
Have a nice day 7!
_ _
|R| |R|
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
[...]
a summary with references in the Wikipedia. You can read the opinion at
http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/Wallace-IBM-7th-Cir.pdf .
Wikipedia side, here's the summary:
1. [FOSS contributors can't charge] Thus the GPL propagates from
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Sigh. Since the GPL has never been reviewed by a court with proper
jurisdiction, you're going to look for a loong time. Since you
obviously don't understand what an illegal term means in general
contract
AZ Nomad wrote:
On 7 Apr 2009 14:10:10 GMT, ray r...@zianet.com wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:56:08 -0400, Rjack wrote:
As we were going over the scan results I noticed a very interesting
trend. The GPL licensed software tends to assimilate quite a bit of
BSD-style and public domain source
amicus_curious wrote:
dr_nikolaus_klepp dr.kl...@gmx.at wrote in message
news:2b749$49dbc4aa$557d7df2$...@news.inode.at...
chrisv wrote:
rat wrote:
Now that is more akin to the way that unsophisticates are lured into
using the free GPL code and then are hammered for their birthright
Rjack wrote:
As we were going over the scan results I noticed a very interesting
trend. The GPL licensed software tends to assimilate quite a bit of
BSD-style and public domain source code. By including that other
source code it ends up spreading like a cancer.
Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:
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
amicus_curious wrote:
Sermo Malifer sermomali...@noemail.com wrote in message
news:grcvqf$r5...@news.albasani.net...
No, he's just observing you have no evidence to support your assertions.
Of course I do. TomTom paid. They didn't pay just because they felt like
paying, they paid
Rjack the stupid wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
For this simple truth you definitly speak too much. Ooops, you write, that
is not speak, so this proverb does not match Rjack.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
amicus_curious wrote:
You are wrong. Patents are simply a means to protect the ideas of
innovators from wanton copycatting by others. Those who can think of new
things to do need to be rewarded or else we will be faced with a steep
decline in technological progress. How many copies of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
It means source code nonexclusively licensed to the public
without copyright scope of use restrictions.
Which is why the FSF and the GPL reject the term.
you forgot to add Idiot
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
12 matches
Mail list logo
