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

[RJack]

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
> > limitations).
>
> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> "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?

Sincerely,
RJack :)