[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: |
Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:03:27 GMT |
User-agent: |
Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) |
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:31:50 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>> So far as I can tell this thought process lumps the GPL in with all
>> other EULA on the one hand, and then differentiates on the other, but
>> only when convenient.
>
> Why? Every EULA (contract) is written differently and should be subject
> to somewhat uniform rules of contract interpretation depending upon what
> jurisdiction you reside.
EULA should be subject to somewhat uniform rules? If you break an EULA
with Microsoft, what would be the result versus breaking an EULA (the
GPL) with Redhat? I've seen no reason why either scenario would that
different.
-Thufir
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 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, 2009/03/26
- 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, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Thufir Hawat <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/27