[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5
From: |
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra |
Subject: |
Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5 |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Jul 2006 21:04:20 +0100 |
Ter, 2006-07-04 às 19:17 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Q: Bzzzzt, but according to RMS, "intellectual property... is a mirage,
> which appears to have a coherent existence only because the term
> suggests it does." So bzzzzt, what the fuck ... !?
>
> A: Well, well, well. But according to one FTC commissioner (and an
> antitrust attorney),
Alex, please let me understand your reasoning:
Because a text is published by some law authority like FTC "is", or
Attoneries are, or even Judges... does that have to be taken as Official
in the Point of View of Law?
Rui
signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente
- Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros", Linonut, 2006/07/02
- Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/04
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5,
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <=
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/07/05
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/05
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/07/05
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/07/05
- Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/07/05