For Approval: GPLv3

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/1/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > On 8/31/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> However, there most definitely are qualified lawyers (e.g. Eben Moglen)
> >> who believe it /should/ be interpreted only as a license.
> >
> > You're brainwashed, Matt.
>
> About what?  I'm not saying the current state of American law is
> "License aren't necessarily contracts".  I'm saying Moglen (who
> certainly is qualified), believes that would be the correct state of the

To paraphrase Stephen Manes(*), when it comes to licensing and IPRs,
Eben "Anarchism Triumphant" and "The dotCommunist Manifesto" Moglen
("one of the world's leading experts on copyright law as applied to
software" self-proclaimed) is Moron.

regards,
alexander.

*) http://www.forbes.com/2004/04/02/cz_sm_0402manes_print.html