[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 15:05:08 +0200 |
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.
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, 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