[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
From: |
Thufir Hawat |
Subject: |
Re: More FSF hypocrisy |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:14:20 GMT |
User-agent: |
Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) |
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:32:52 -0400, Rjack wrote:
> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>>
>>>>> IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A
>>>>> CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND
>>>>> THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF
>>>>> INFRINGEMENT.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming this is so, what's your point?
>>> The point of an original newsgroup post seems to evolvs with the
>>> number of posts to the thread. I think we were discussing legal
>>> enforcement of the GPL.
>>
>>
>> If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in
>> your view?
>>
>>
> The GPL contains unenforceable terms.
When other EULA are ignored by the end users, the response is typically
copyright infringement, right?
-Thufir
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Thufir Hawat <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Peter Köhlmann, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25