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

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

Re: [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon


From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: [LOL] Hey Alan, Pee Jay's mind is going to explode soon
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:13:03 -0000
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>> Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> wrote:

>> [ snip ]

>> If there was any meaning, any point made in the snipped "material", it
>> totally escapes me.  Any chance you might like to restate your point
>> in a concise and clear paragraph?  I'm assuming that you had some
>> point to make.

> The point is the following, Alan.

OK, this is better than your opening post, but still not very good.  You
haven't written a concise clear paragraph explaining what you're trying
to say.  However, .....

> PJ wrote on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT:

> -----
> I think you are not understanding each other.
> I think he [AMackenzie] meant Terekhov. 

Yes, I did mean you.

> He [Terekhov] is only significant if it turns out he's 
> [Terekhov is] behind things like Psystar and Dan Wallace's
> equally failed attack on the GPL. 
> -----

I didn't write that.  I think PJ did.  Have you had any part in Psystar's
activities or Dan Wallace's?

> Anonymous replied on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:46 AM EDT:

Was that "anonymous" you, by any chance?

> -----
> PJ, don't you think that Terekhov is behind Versa-Bosch-Humax-
> Western Digital-Samsung attack on the GPL as well?

Have you had anything to do with these matters?

> See 1:09-cv-10155-SAS Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best 
> Buy Co., Inc. et al.

> Versa:

> "On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs? 
> claims are barred, limited and/or excluded on the grounds that 
> the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain provisions 
> contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred by public 
> policy as well as by statutory and case law."

> Bosch:

[ .... ]

> Anonymous added on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:55 AM EDT:

> -----
> Westinghouse:

> "Plaintiffs? claims for relief are barred by the First Sale
> doctrine." "
> -----

> Got it now, Alan?

No.  You've dumped a load of material from Groklaw onto gnu.misc.discuss,
and by doing so you're presumingly making some point.  What point,
exactly, escapes me.  Perhaps you would be kind enough to state clearly
and explicitly what your point is.

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).



reply via email to

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