On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and on
obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent. A typical
one of your posts assumes, often tacitly, something you showed in some
previous post,
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and
on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent.
Your whining continues obsessively Alan. Since you obviously don't
understand
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on and
on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and coherent.
Your whining continues
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Since you obviously don't understand kill-files:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file please read up on the merits
of kill-files and then implement one.
That's like saying an air raid shelter will save the anguish
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:57:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
These posts of yours are unreadable, RJ. They go on and on
and on obsessively, yet they are none of them complete and
coherent.
Your
Tim wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Since you obviously don't understand kill-files:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file please read up on the
merits of kill-files and then implement one.
That's like saying an air raid shelter will save the
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are
illegal. And he protests:
Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
...
You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made
instead of just denying and lying.
OK, readers, I need
RonB wrote:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
And he protests:
Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
...
You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
just denying and lying.
OK,
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[snip]
You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate,
despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your
mouth out with soap for claiming such things.
[snip]
If true, such claims are irrelevant. Ad hominen attacks
I had figured that Rjack was saying that terms in the GPL are
unenforceable because they are illegal.
But now, in his latest posting, he seems to be saying the opposite: that
terms in the GPL are illegal because they are unenforceable.
Which is cyclic enough that nobody will ever win this
In gnu.misc.discuss Keith Thompson ks...@mib.org wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[snip]
You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate,
despicable, deleterious desperado indeed. Your mother should wash your
mouth out with soap for claiming such things.
[snip]
Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack!
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
If the GPL contains any illegal terms, it should be easy to prove
this. Just find some statute or case law according to which
GPL-like permissions are illegal. If you can find none, then
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Happy pagan fertility rite, RJack!
. . . whining . . .
. . . more whining . . .
Its enforceability is a sensible default assumption. The GPL was
put together by a competent lawyer,
I didn't know Richard Stallman was a lawyer. Was that pseudo-fact also
a default
Rjack made two ludicrious claims.
First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result, anybody
can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations. I will discuss
this later.
Second, that the GPL, if treated as causing a contract to form, is
unenforceable due to illegality.
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack made two ludicrious claims.
First, that the GPL causes promissory estoppel, and as a result,
anybody can copy GPL software as he pleases, with no limitations.
You're flat out lying Rahul. I never claimed that. You're a desperate,
despicable, deleterious desperado
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
And he protests:
Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
...
You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
just denying and lying.
OK, readers, I need
RonB stated in post grrlk7$64...@news.motzarella.org on 4/11/09 8:01 PM:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
And he protests:
Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
...
You been told many, many times. Review
RonB ronb02nos...@gmail.com writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
And he protests:
Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
...
You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
just
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
(I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely,
answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.)
I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the term
illegal changed with a change contexts, that a little something
would
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
(I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely,
answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.)
I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the
term illegal changed with a change contexts, that a
Rjack has outdone himself.
I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to show
that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since we have a
couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing when a contract
should be unenforceable due to illegality, Rjack ought to
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack has outdone himself.
I objected to his quoting answers.com and merriam-webster.com to
show that the GPL contains illegal terms. I suggested that, since
we have a couple of hundred years or more of case law discussing
when a contract should be unenforceable due to
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 interpretation your quest is
Rjack is trying to show that the GPL contains illegal terms.
Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared expectation
that the parties will execute the contract in accord with the law
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html
This is a case about an
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
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack is trying to show that the GPL contains illegal terms.
Indeed, a sine qua non of contract doctrine is a shared
expectation that the parties will execute the contract in accord
with the law
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/143/143.F3d.1260.97-15781.html
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Your remark concerning use is interesting. There is a subtle
distinction between use in the context of patents and that of
copyrights. The patent grant states:
[ a long, tedious, legal argument ]
More and more, when I read Rjack's flawed and tedious arguments that
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxthexg.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:grlfag$9e...@blue.rahul.net...
Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
--
A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and that
has not yet happened to Rjack.
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
--
A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and that
has not yet happened to Rjack.
Ah yes! I had forgotten that Rjack has overruled the CAFC (repeatedly).
I
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxthexg.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:grli7b$f2...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
--
A very major difference is that judges were ruling against Wallace and
that
has not yet
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
--
A very major difference is that judges were ruling against
Wallace and that has not yet happened to Rjack.
Ah yes! I had forgotten that Rjack has overruled the CAFC
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority and
have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreeing with
a court when relying on alternate but conflicting legal authority.
The CAFC panel, comprising three smart people, already
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
[...]
Present your legal arguments and have at it. Using ad homonem
arguments because your angry with someone will convince no one.
It's taken you this long to realize that?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org http://www.ghoti.net/~kst
Nokia
We
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority
and have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
disagreeing with a court when relying on alternate but
conflicting legal authority.
The CAFC panel, comprising three
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
If you acually think the Ninth Circuit will overrule it's own
precendent because of the CAFC ruling, then I have a nice bridge in
Brooklyn that I would like to sell you -- cheap.
I don't believe any of the Ninth Circuit's precedents are directly
relevant to the
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
If you acually think the Ninth Circuit will overrule it's own
precendent because of the CAFC ruling, then I have a nice bridge
in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you -- cheap.
I don't believe any of the Ninth Circuit's precedents are
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy for
this so called misappropriation of software. So that we may further
discuss misappropriation in more detail. Seems to be an ill-defined
term.
Does anybody else understand what Rjack is asking for?
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy
for this so called misappropriation of software. So that we may
further discuss misappropriation in more detail. Seems to be an
ill-defined term.
Does anybody else understand
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Please identify what system(s) of law(s) provide a legal remedy
for this so called misappropriation of software. So that we may
further discuss misappropriation in more detail. Seems to be an
ill-defined term.
Does anybody else understand
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 by
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 by the SFLC.
Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have
been touched!
So, you think software developers just grab
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message
news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet...
GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying
to rip off their
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 by
the SFLC. Ignorance is no
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 do not carry any baggage related to
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, 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.
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote:
To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that:
1) you must cause
Only if you choose to accept the GPL, only if you accept it. If you
decline to accept it, that's fine, you can then contact the copyright
holder to make
In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote:
It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA.
The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says you
may run this program unconditionally. The concept of end user is
absent in free software licensing, and
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 do not carry any
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, 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
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:20:08 -0400, Rjack wrote:
To summarize, this means the GPL is a contract to requiring that:
1) you must cause
Only if you choose to accept the GPL, only if you accept it. If you
decline to accept it, that's fine, you can then contact the
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote:
It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA.
The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says
you may run this program unconditionally. The concept of end
user is absent in
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net 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:
The logical conclusion of your argument is that the GPL is pointless.
And, since the BSD license is
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote:
It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA.
The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that says
you may run this program
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com
wrote:
It[the GPL]'s just as much a contract as any other EULA.
The GPL isn't a EULA, except perhaps the tiny part of it that
says you may
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net 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:
The logical conclusion of your argument is
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net 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:
The logical conclusion of
Hadron wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net 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:
The logical conclusion of your
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net 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:
The
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software
being in the public domain, and software being licensed under the
GPL, understood as you understand it?
Code in the public domain doesn't have ownership
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
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Where do you see the difference, in practice, between software
being in the public domain, and software being licensed under
the GPL, understood as you understand it?
Code in the public domain
dr_nikolaus_klepp wrote:
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
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net 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
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net 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
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net 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
JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message
news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet...
GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying
to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal
contract.
Nice self-nuke on your part there...
You either
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net 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
amicus_curious wrote:
JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message
news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet...
GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are
trying to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to
accept an illegal contract.
Nice self-nuke on your part
On 2009-04-06, amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message
news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet...
GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying
to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal
contract.
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net 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
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
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 by the SFLC.
Ignorance is no excuse!, they say, What's yours is now ours, you have
been touched!
You have pointed out a
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote in message
news:slrngtkmgi.vvv.j...@nomad.mishnet...
GPL license offerers are much more akin to homeowners who are trying
to rip off their invited guests by tempting them to accept an illegal
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2009-04-06, Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:07:03 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I'm not sure how actually serious this problem is. That would
depend on how gullible software users are. Do they believe
everything they read on Usenet? I suspect most of them are too
smart to be fooled.
Uh... does that include messages from a certain Rahul Dhesi who
posts
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:0yydnb8mcqht8kfunz2dnuvz_sbin...@giganews.com...
By using the analogy of a titty bar you are displaying your ugly
misogynist side. Your sexist remarks have set women's rights
back at least a half century.
That long? I wouldn't think that the
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxthexg.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:grduio$r3...@blue.rahul.net...
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
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 by the
SFLC.
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$9t6@newsfe10.iad...
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:35:51 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Free Software is highly restrictive software and isn't
free at all. Permissive licensed open source code such as BSD licensed
programs do not carry
amicus_curious wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:tvqdnf7tyeli7evunz2dnuvz_g2wn...@giganews.com...
amicus_curious wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:oymdndmtkdtop0vunz2dnuvz_vedn...@giganews.com...
Only an idiot can construe intimidation from a written
Rjack wrote:
Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:44:43 -0400, Rjack wrote:
The Free Software Foundation has *never* advanced a legal
argument to refute the fact that the GPL is contractually
unenforceable and preempted by the Copyright Act.
What's your argument that isn't
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxthexg.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gr82or$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:
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
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
amicus_curious wrote:
The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in
nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the
compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs
based on the programmer's arrangement of source code syntax and
order,
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
amicus_curious wrote:
The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in
nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the
compiler output, constructed of some collection of these constructs
based on the programmer's arrangement of
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
amicus_curious wrote:
The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in
nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that
the compiler output, constructed of some collection of these
constructs based on the
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
amicus_curious wrote:
The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic in
nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case that the
compiler output, constructed of some collection of
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
amicus_curious wrote:
The constructions created by any compiler are fairly atomic
in nature and it is unlikely that anyone could make a case
that the compiler output, constructed
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 for a possibly contentious issue.
And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could twice fail to
grasp the
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 for a possibly contentious issue.
And only a fucking Freetard moron such as yourself could
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:00:34 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Don't like the GPLv3's provisions? Just issue an exception to its terms
when convenient!
I wanted to note that the FSF has just released an exception (the
first?) to GPL3 under Section 7 (that allows additional permissions to
negate other
SomeBloke wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:00:34 -0400, Rjack wrote:
Don't like the GPLv3's provisions? Just issue an exception to its terms
when convenient!
I wanted to note that the FSF has just released an exception (the
first?) to GPL3 under Section 7 (that allows additional permissions to
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote in message
news:49d517f2.ac331...@web.de...
Rjack wrote:
[...]
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
Since all of the object code that GCC generates is derived from these
GPLed libraries, that means you would be required to
97 matches
Mail list logo
