Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> > GPL3 _does_ claim you need to accept the license to modify the work even
> > without distribution, or else you're infringing on copyright. This does
> > not actually appear to be the case.
> 
> No. See section 0. <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
>      To “modify” a work means... 

Yes, yes, after redefining the meaning of the word "free" for
themselves, the two major GNUtians (Eben and Richard) felt free (in the
old sense of "free") to redefine many other words (such as "modify") and
modify (in the old sense of "modify") their meaning as well. 

<chuckles>

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)