[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
From: |
Thufir Hawat |
Subject: |
Re: More FSF hypocrisy |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:09:12 GMT |
User-agent: |
Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) |
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>> All EULA would be contracts, yes? Not complying with an EULA opens up
>> a can of worms.
>
> Depends on whether the EULA is ultimately found by the courts to be
> enforceable or not.
Do please generalize as to whether other EULA are, or are not, contracts
in your view.
-Thufir
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Thufir Hawat <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Peter Köhlmann, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, MBUnit, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, MBUnit, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/25