rms at 1407.org claiming "licenses aren't contracts" and that... [was: Re: Microsoft claiming...]

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi Alexander,

On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> (Subject changed: back on "license-discuss" topicality :-) )

I'm sorry, I honestly don't see how this in "on-topic".  Please email  
me directly so we can sort this out.

-- Ernie P.
OSI Board Observer


>
>
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Licen%C3%A7a_de_software_livre&diff=cur&oldid=7241703
>
> "Em outras palavras, uma licença de software livre é um contrato que
> garante aos usuários de um software livre a permissão para remover
> qualquer aspecto de propriedade intelectual do software que, caso
> contrário, descaracterizaria sua condição de software livre."
>
> http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr
>
> "In other words, a license of free software is a contract that
> guarantees to the users of a free software the permission to remove
> any aspect of copyright of the software that, in case that contrary,
> would deprive of characteristics its condition of free software."
>
> is (well, now actually was) <quote> actually so factually wrong that
> it can only have been written by people who are agains Free Software,
> and want to spread disinformation. </quote>
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2007-10/msg00100.html
>
> And so he quickly patched it. :-)
>
> While refusing to give any comments when confronted with
>
> http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Horn/99/RTCOMP.htm
>
> may I note.
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
> --
> "To show the falsity of 'PJ''s claims, in most cases I need look no  
> further
> than Groklaw itself. 'PJ' wants more journalists to use the site as a
> resource, so I'll do just that. Below are excerpts from my story  
> that 'PJ'
> says are incorrect, followed by 'PJ''s characterization of them, and  
> my
> response -- at times taken directly from Groklaw."