[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:30:22 +0200 |
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > 8/28 IBM filed "supplimental authorities."
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > These appellate judges are no morons
> >>
> >> Remember that line. You'll be singing a different tune once they
> >> finish the case.
> >
> > I can't exclude that possibility entirely. Depends on their
> > reasoning. No morons can become morons, y'know. And the GPL has
> > amazing power to induce moronity, I admit.
>
> Seeing what it has done to you, I tend to agree.
No dak, you're the case in point, not me. Your latest postulation
regarding the GPL mechanics on gnu.misc.discuss
"And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations."
is quite telling.
regards,
alexander.
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/14
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, David Kastrup, 2006/09/14
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/14
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, David Kastrup, 2006/09/14
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, David Kastrup, 2006/09/14
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/14
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, David Kastrup, 2006/09/14
- Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/09/14