gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:45:00 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
My dear Mr. Rjack,

please note:

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <address@hidden> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:

The following paragraph, originally cited by you, is talking about
 copying source code.  Note:  SOURCE CODE.

"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."

Er, what's that got to do with anything? Who's talking about source code? The topic was Groklaw's reporting of Psystar's court loss, concerning its distribution of Apple's OS in violation of copyright.

Before asking such nonsense questions, try reading the title of this thread and one of the quotes objected to.

The title of this thread has, at best, a tenuous connection with that paragraph you cited. Would you please read that paragraph again.

Now, the following paragraph, again cited by you, has nothing to do
 with source code.  It is talking about "owning a copy" of an Apple
operating system, that copy being essentially 100% machine executable code. There is no source code concerned here.

"Even if Psystar were the lawful owner of the copy, it still can't do what it did. The court quotes from Microsoft Corp. v. Software Wholesale Club, Inc.: "the first-sale doctrine does not apply to an admittedly counterfeit unit". So, no, you can't buy a
 copy and use it to go into a counterfeiting business, in effect.
Terekhov's theory has bitten the dust and then had to eat some. Just like Daniel Wallace's anti-GPL theory did. Whoever is relying on their legal theories might want to buy a vowel and try to figure this puzzle out." http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091114101637997

If you still have to ask such silly questions then you don't belong here. Try Groklaw instead.

Please do try to pay attention to what you cite.

If you can't grasp that Pee Jay is trying to generalize and apply
the holdings of the Psystar Summary Judgement to your precious GPL and
"Free" software then you don't belong on this thread -- it's too
subtle for you here. Hop on over to Groklaw and play Polly Parrot.

Sincerely,
Rjack


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]