Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> When somebody fails to state a case, that hardly can be considered a

Dak, dak, dak.

------
[... reduction in IP output under GPL price-dumping conspiracy ...] 

This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be 
inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint. 

Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a 
------ 

Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a 

Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a 

Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a 

Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a 

Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a 

------
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which
Relief can be Granted.

[...]

Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a 
claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule 
of reason doctrine.
------

http://www.internetcases.com/library/cases/2005-11-28_wallace_v_fsf.pdf

You're really incurable, dak.

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.)