[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:30:51 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <> writes:
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > "And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations."
> >> >
> >> > is quite telling.
> >>
> >> Read a dictionary.  "Keep in place" is perfectly acceptable definition
> >
> > Which place, dak? And what puts it in place to begin with? And recall
> > that your GNUtian authority comrade moron Moglen postulates that "a
> > license is a unilateral permission, not an obligation." So did you
> > check it with him? Party line, and all that, you know.
> It is a unilateral permission, but not without preconditions.  Making

Preconditions? So what are the preconditions to make a copy under the 

> use of that permission requires heeding obligations spelled out in the
> license.

Nah, the Prof. in GNU Logic postulates that the permission is unilateral
and elaborates: "a true copyright license: a unilateral permission, in 
which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor." (See

Care to reconcile that, GNUtian dak?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]