[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:29:39 +0100

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
> Did you tell Microsoft what you did? In such a way that they
> would notice you and care?

Why should I, Hyman? Beside that, believe me that popular copyright (and
other rights) holders are monitoring offers on ebay quite thoroughly (at
least in Germany).

> In general, do you believe that you have done nothing wrong
> if your actions are against the law but no one has caught you?

"In general" aside, why do you implicate that my actions were somehow
against the law?

Here's what happened:

1. I went to Microsoft's online shop which was offering winxp64 beta on
a CD (not free) or via download (free) form. ("Free" as in zero

2. I've chosen the later. (I was not asked to agree to anything.)

3. Microsoft's shop sent me (per e-mail) an order confirmation with an
activation key and a link to download.

4. I've done the above 1+14 times altogether.

5. I've (re)distributed 15 copies of downloaded (I was not asked to
agree to anything as a condition to downloading) winxp64 beta with the
corresponding keys and among those copies there was one copy openly
offered to the general public on (Item 7133325141) with the
winning bid EURO 6.50.

Is there anything above against the law, Hyman?


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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