[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: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:57:38 -0000

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/5/2010 12:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> Yes. That's not a "fair use" permission as the OP claimed.
> > It has nothing to do with fair use
> Yes, that's what I said.
> > The idea that the "copyleft hack" of copyright act is enforceable by
> > the copyright act itself is utterly moronic.
> <>
>      "Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are
>       enforceable copyright conditions..."

It was explained to you many times that CAFC's opinion (authored by a
district court judge from New Jersey sitting by designation and
apparently having trouble to grasp California contract law regarding
conditions and confusing the concept of conditions with license scope
limitations and consideration in the form of compliance with licensee's
obligations) in the Jacobsen case is *non-precedential* amusing
BULLSHIT. CAFC has no authority to establish precedents in copyright
licensing matters.


(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.)

reply via email to

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