[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: |
Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:12:49 GMT |
User-agent: |
Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) |
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:04:54 -0400, Rjack wrote:
> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>> 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.
>
> All EULAs are contracts.
So, when an EULA is ignored, the usual response is copyright
infringement, right?
-Thufir
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- 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, 2009/03/25
- 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 <=
- 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
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/26