[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really this dumb?

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really this dumb?
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:12:27 +0200

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>    "Alfred M. Szmidt" <> writes:
>    >    Not really.  You can use it to license commercial software, but
>    >    since the demand is that it is "to be licensed as a whole at no
>    >    charge", while you can charge for a copy of the _software_, the
>    >    license itself is not a commercial item.
>    >
>    > Sure it is, you can charge several millions for a copy of the license.
>    > All that is required is that you do not modify it.
>    You can't charge anything for the license accompanying sublicensed
>    GPLed software, obviously.  That's what the "no charge" is about.

Sublicensed GPLed software? Dak, dak, dak, 

                       "Sublicensing is not allowed"

>    Please read again.
> Sure I can, I am talking about the actual _LICENSE_.  The FSF even
> sells nicely printed copies of it, did you know that?
> |     Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> |     of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> What I cannot do is charge for receiving a license to do things, which
> is quite different.  You like to complain about my spelling, now I'd
> like to take the oppertunity to complain about your complete and utter
> inability to comprehend basic English.



"Mathematics is primarily a language for ensuring reliable results 
in human social activity. "

         -- Columbia Professor Eben Anarcho-Dot Communist Moglen

reply via email to

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