Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim

[Ben Pfaff]

hollaar@antitrust.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes:

> In article <45536D8E.4C60D8C5@web.de> terekhov@web.de writes:
>>--------------------
>>In the
>>United States Court of Appeals
>>For the Seventh Circuit
>>____________
>>No. 06-2454
>>DANIEL WALLACE,
>>Plaintiff-Appellant,
>>v.
>>INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
>>CORPORATION; RED HAT, INC.; and
>>NOVELL, INC.,
>>Defendants-Appellees.
>
> The short version can be summed up by this sentence from the opinion:
> "This does not assist Williams, however, because his legal theory is
> faulty substantively."

The opinion only mentions "Williams" in that sentence.  Is this a
typo for "Wallace"?
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
email: blp@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org