[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: ZnU
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:02 -0000
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

In article <>,
 RJack <> wrote:

> On 8/5/2010 3:34 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > On 8/5/2010 3:11 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> Hyman Rosen is spin doctoring CAFC's Jacobsen opinion
> >
> > The court ruled that the copyright conditions found in a specific
> > open license were indeed copyright conditions such that copying
> > without honoring them is copyright violation.
> And the Artistic License is not the GPL license. This is cognitively
> unacceptable to GPL crackpots on who have built their identity on
> asserting false legal claims concerning the GPL license.

In what way are they different such that the Artistic License creates 
copyright conditions but the GPL does not?


"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

reply via email to

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