(OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Sat Feb 9 15:46:53 UTC 2008
On Feb 9, 2008 3:56 PM, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> What I'm "implying" is that your argument is specious.
> > Feel free to bring this to the attention of Microsoft Legal, then.
> > And let me know what they will tell you. TIA.
> It's not my job to enforce Microsoft's copyright, and I don't see how
> any of this is relevant to this list.
Quoting Rick Moen (rick at linuxmafia.com):
> I'd personally like to see Terenkov _test_ his theory, using, say, a
> downloaded copy of ... We then bring this to the attention of ...
> Legal, which should give the man's hypothesis a suitably vigourous
> I understand that ... Legal are extremely helpful in such matters.
> Cheers, "Send a policeman, and have it arrested."
> Rick Moen -- Otto von Bismarck, when asked what he
> rick at linuxmafia.com would do if the British Army landed.
"Notwithstanding Jacobsen's confused discussion of unilateral
contracts, bilateral contracts, implied licenses, "licenses to the
world" and "bare" licenses in his Appellant's Brief, the issue at hand
is fairly simple."
-- Brief of Appellees (CAFC 2008-1001).
More information about the License-discuss