Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> > 8/28 IBM filed "supplimental authorities."
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> > These appellate judges are no morons
>> >>
>> >> Remember that line.  You'll be singing a different tune once they
>> >> finish the case.
>> >
>> > I can't exclude that possibility entirely. Depends on their
>> > reasoning.  No morons can become morons, y'know. And the GPL has
>> > amazing power to induce moronity, I admit.
>> 
>> Seeing what it has done to you, I tend to agree.
>
> No dak, you're the case in point, not me. Your latest postulation
> regarding the GPL mechanics on gnu.misc.discuss
>
> "And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations."
>
> is quite telling.

Read a dictionary.  "Keep in place" is perfectly acceptable definition
of "retain".  You have a tendency to grasp at straws whenever you run
out of arguments.

That's one of the reasons why you are so lousy with your pseudo-legal
advice: you can't tell a straw from something solid enough to rely on.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum