Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:

[... EULA and right to run ...]

>From grokxxx blog:

"Yes, you are wrong 

Authored by: PJ on Monday, September 13 2010 @ 02:19 AM EDT 

By the way, you are wrong still. Here's the wording from GPLv3 that
proves you are wrong:

2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program....

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, 
              ^^^
without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. 
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So you've been posting silly putty. Now cut it out. "

"Yes, you are wrong 

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 13 2010 @ 10:31 AM EDT 

There is no such wording in GPL V.2.

But, you are correct concerning V.3. The GNU GPL V.3 is an EULA. I was
not aware of that. Thank you for showing me that. I now know I will
never release any code under V.3 of the GPL.

You were also right, on your previous post. I certainly said enough
about this. Probably too much. But, to be fair this ruling really pushed
my button. I'm madder about this than I am about the whole SCO thing.
Sorry, for hogging the topic. I'll go cool off, if I can. And stop
reading this topic (so I don't obsess any more about it).

--Celtic_hackr "

LMAO.

regards, 
alexander. 

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)