[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
From: |
Rahul Dhesi |
Subject: |
Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .. |
Date: |
Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:11:52 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
nn/6.7.0 |
"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>I think you are placing too much emphasis on the term "illegal". In
>the GPL sense, since it is a civil issue, the term is equivalent to
>"unenforcable" or "invalid" or any other word that boils down to being
>unable to recover damages.
Rjack, he's posting this nonsense to defend you. This would be a good
oportunity for you to find some citations proving him wrong -- but will
you do so?
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., (continued)
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Rjack, 2009/04/05
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Alexander Terekhov, 2009/04/11
- can't charge for GPL software .., Doug Mentohl, 2009/04/11
- Re: can't charge for GPL software .., Alexander Terekhov, 2009/04/11
- Re: can't charge for GPL software .., Chris Ahlstrom, 2009/04/11
- Re: can't charge for GPL software .., Doctor Smith, 2009/04/12
- Re: can't charge for GPL software .., Hadron, 2009/04/12
- Re: can't charge for GPL software .., Doctor Smith, 2009/04/12
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., dr_nikolaus_klepp, 2009/04/11
Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., amicus_curious, 2009/04/04
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..,
Rahul Dhesi <=
Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Rahul Dhesi, 2009/04/04