[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SFLC is SOL
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: SFLC is SOL |
Date: |
Tue, 04 May 2010 16:09:02 -0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) |
RJack <user@example.net> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
>>
>>> That's a really brilliant tautology. "If I never use the GPL then
>>> the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply"! Clever. Really clever.
>>
>> You are getting this backwards. The Supreme Court talks about
>> non-parties here. If you, as recipient of software, don't make use
>> of the GPL, you are a non-party. So the Supreme Court ruling
>> concerning non-parties _does_ apply, and you are not bound by the
>> terms of the GPL. If you, however, make use of the GPL, you become a
>> party of the license agreement.
>
> Who am I supposed to believe? You or my lyin' eyes? ROFL.
I think that the lying happens later in the processing chain. Anyway,
if you have access to a brain, I recommend that you switch it on. That
way, you avoid the need to believe anybody else.
> Sincerely,
Unlikely.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Mining the Blogosphere, (continued)
- Re: Mining the Blogosphere, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: Mining the Blogosphere, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Mining the Blogosphere, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Rex Ballard, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hadron, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, amicus_curious, 2010/05/04