[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:03:41 -0600
User-agent: slrn/ (Debian)

On 2008-12-04, Rahul Dhesi <> wrote:
> David Kastrup <> writes:
>>The GPL is not a contract but a license.  It spells the conditions you
>>have to meet.
> I have seen different people call it both. And actually it doesn't
> really matter what you call it.

It might matter to a lawyer or a judge.

I don't think any of the peanut gallery members here 
are qualified to comment one way or the other. The 
GPL is certainly plain enough in it's intent 
(regardless of whether or not you agree with the
underlying ideology).



       Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to 
your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens        |||
rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal   / | \
affairs, government and business.

 Posted Via Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]