Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > "And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations."
>> >
>> > is quite telling.
>> 
>> Read a dictionary.  "Keep in place" is perfectly acceptable definition
>
> Which place, dak? And what puts it in place to begin with? And recall 
> that your GNUtian authority comrade moron Moglen postulates that "a 
> license is a unilateral permission, not an obligation." So did you 
> check it with him? Party line, and all that, you know.

It is a unilateral permission, but not without preconditions.  Making
use of that permission requires heeding obligations spelled out in the
license.

You really are grasping at straws again.  Can't you find a less silly
way to spend your time?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum