Re: GNU FUD

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> By the way: I agree with your assessment of Alexander being an avid
> >> observer of what you call "Intellectual Property law" (there is
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Intellectual_property_law
> >
> >> actually no such thing, as there are disparate laws about the items
> >> grouped under this term).  The problem is that he is completely unable
> >> to draw any reasonable conclusions from his observations: his
> >> predictions are consistently utterly wrong, and he blames this on
> >> "drunk judges" and similar excuses.
> >
> > Do you really want to me post Easterbrook's summary of the GPL (his
> > "quick look" on Wallace's claim aside for a moment) once again?
> >
> > I seem to recall that you *agreed* that Easterbrook was indeed
> > "drunken" at least regarding his ability to comprehend the GPL.
> 
> Your recollections are rather colorful.  I am rather certain that I
> said no such thing.  I might have differed in details with his
> assessment and reasoning which is not all too surprising.  

I wrote:

|| And, BTW, according to EASTERBROOK, "the GPL propagates from user to 
|| user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any 
|| creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the 
|| software or allow any successor to charge." 
||
|| Got it? 

You replied:

| Well, I hope not.  The above sounds a bit confused, or at least 
| sloppily worded.

regards,
alexander.