(OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory

Alexander Terekhov alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Sat Feb 9 16:16:13 UTC 2008

On Feb 9, 2008 4:56 PM, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Hand waving.
> I said very clearly why it's specious.  The government simply doesn't
> enforce the law, the vast majority of the time.

Here again you seem to falsely imply that the act was somehow illegal.
I submit that the act was utterly legal.

> >>> 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
> >> validation.
> /I/ didn't say that.  I don't care a whit about Adobe enforcing their
> proprietary EULA either, and I don't see how it concerns the Open Source
> Initiative.

+1. :-)


"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 mailing list