Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Rahul Dhesi]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

>Your remark concerning "use" is interesting. There is a subtle
>distinction between "use" in the context of patents and that of
>copyrights. The patent grant states:

[ a long, tedious, legal argument ]

More and more, when I read Rjack's flawed and tedious arguments that
despite quoting many alleged legal authorities repeatedly come to
erroneous conclusions, I'm reminded of the lawsuit filed by a plaintiff
identifying himself as Daniel Wallace.  Just like Rjack goes on and on,
so did Wallace. Each time his complaint in court proved to be worthless,
he amended it and refiled it, and kept going until the judge finally
told him he had had enough chances.  Wallace still didn't give up -- he
kept going until the Seventh Circuit, too, told him enough.
<http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/157903>.

Rjack, like Wallace, won't give up. As soon as he loses the argument, he
reposts it under a new subject heading.

Rjack, like Wallace <http://www.danwal.com/rescission.html>, makes a big
deal of the word "rescission" and apparently does not distinguish
between that and cancellation of a contract.

Rjack, like Wallace <http://www.danwal.com/preemption.html>. focusses a
bit too much on preemption.

Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/