[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL traitor !

From: Tim Smith
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 09:39:13 -0700
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel Mac OS X)

In article <slrnh05ntl.6u0.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-05-07, Tim Smith <> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh04da1.43u.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >>     No, the question is whether or not code that is entirely dependent
> >> on some other person's work for it's existence is a derivative work. This
> >> question doesn't magically go away just because you take the GPL out of
> >> the picture.
> >
> > The question of whether or not a work is "dependent on" someone else's 
> > work doesn't even arise, because the relationship "dependent on" is not 
> > a relationship that has any meaning in copyright law.
>     Stop pretending to be a lawyer. It's a felony in most places.

That was hilarious.  You make claims about copyright law, even though 
you are not a lawyer, and show now evidence of having done any serious 
study of copyright law, nor of having any training in copyright law.  
You apparently think that is OK, or you wouldn't be doing it.

I make claims about copyright law, based on having taken (and done very 
well in) copyright law when I was in law school, and based on having 
discussed these issues with my copyright professor and with practicing 
copyright attorneys, and on having read the relevant cases, the relevant 
law review articles, the statutes, legislative history and committee 
reports behind the statutes, and so on. According to you, that's *not* 
OK!?  For people who aren't lawyers, it's only OK to talk about law if 
they do so from a position of complete ignorance, like you do??

--Tim Smith

reply via email to

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