[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:43:24 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep
intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
Program a copy of this License along with the Program."

Er, what's that got to do with anything?  Who's talking about
source code?  The topic was Groklaw's reporting of Psystar's court
loss, concerning its distribution of Apple's OS in violation of

Before asking such nonsense questions, try reading the title of this
thread and one of the quotes objected to.

"Even if Psystar were the lawful owner of the copy, it still can't do
what it did. The court quotes from Microsoft Corp. v. Software
Wholesale Club, Inc.: "the first-sale doctrine does not apply to an
admittedly counterfeit unit". So, no, you can't buy a copy and use it
to go into a counterfeiting business, in effect. Terekhov's theory has
bitten the dust and then had to eat some. Just like Daniel Wallace's
anti-GPL theory did. Whoever is relying on their legal theories might
want to buy a vowel and try to figure this puzzle out."

If you still have to ask such silly questions then you don't belong
here. Try Groklaw instead.


reply via email to

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