[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: RJack
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:57:38 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1

On 8/5/2010 11:47 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 8/5/2010 11:26 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Even if the GPL would really specify "different requirements" for
copies made for own use and for copies made for distribution, that
would NOT change the fact that failure to fulfil such requirements
is a contract breach and not a copyright infringement, because the
GNUtian requirements are nether conditions precedent to the
license grant nor limitations of the rights granted (license scope

<> "Having
determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable
copyright conditions..."

In the battle of crank vs. court, crank loses. Always.

Ah Hyman, your clever attempt at bait and switch between Artist License
and GPL license may fool some people but do you really think you can
fool a Corleone?

RJack :)

reply via email to

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