[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:28:16 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

In gnu.misc.discuss Rahul Dhesi <> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <> writes, following up to Rjack:
>>How can there be a contract when there's been no agreement between the
>>parties involved?....
> Rjack already lost this argument under a different subject heading.
> Each time he loses an argument he reposts it under a new subject
> heading. See the previous subject heading "Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux
> patent lock-down ..".
> Rjack found cases where the court used contract law to determine a
> remedy for a license violation. Seeing the word "contract", he came to
> the erroneous conclusion that, just because you can base a remedy on
> contract law, therefore there is no difference between a license and a
> contract. And therefore, you no longer need an offer an an acceptance to
> form a contract.

He seems to be suffering a deal of epistemological confusion.  Whilst
some unfortunate people can't distinguish reality from fantasy, RJack
can't distinguish reality from words.

> So now, let me predict: We will soon see Rjack repost the same flawed
> argument under yet another subject heading.

That's a bit like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow morning.

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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