(OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
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
"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