[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: |
Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:03:55 GMT |
User-agent: |
Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black) |
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:15:32 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> The GPL isn't a contract. It's a license which lays out the conditions
> under which someone has permission to copy and distribute a covered
> work. If someone copies and distributes a covered work without adhering
> to the conditions, he is liable for copyright infringement.
Rjacks argument is that because the GPL is unenforceable there is no
liability, although I've not seen a clear explanation for the premise.
-Thufir
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Thufir Hawat <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rahul Dhesi, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rahul Dhesi, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26