[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
From: |
Thufir Hawat |
Subject: |
Re: More FSF hypocrisy |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:26:18 GMT |
User-agent: |
Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) |
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:22:19 -0400, Rjack wrote:
> IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A
> CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND THEN
> EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF INFRINGEMENT.
Assuming this is so, what's your point? All EULA would be contracts,
yes? Not complying with an EULA opens up a can of worms.
-Thufir
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Thufir Hawat <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Peter Köhlmann, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, MBUnit, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, MBUnit, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/25