Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- LinuxElectrons: "Microsoft Issues Statement Concerning the GPLv3 and Novell Agreement"

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> The GPL girl jumps in and claims that "In other words, not to put too
>  fine a point on it, GPLv3 worked. ... You know what I love about the
>  GPL? Regular lawyers can't understand it."
>
> LOL.
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070705205728953 (MS: 
> Dancing as fast as it can to try to get away from GPLv3)

Here's how to judge the accuracy and legal correctness of your posts to
the "GPL girl's" blog:

1). Post your critical comment concerning the GPL. (Be respectful,
remain on topic and cite your legal authorities)

2). Check *immediately* that your posted comment actually registers on site.

3). Wait thirty minutes.

4). Check from a *DIFFERENT* IP address to see if your legal comment is
still visible.

5.) If your comment is no longer visible except from the *ORIGINAL*
posting IP address your comment has been censored by the "GPL girl" and
is thus both accurate and relevant

Any remark demonstrating the legal folly of the GPL remains visible
only to the original poster. No discussion of the actual legal merits of
the GPL is ever tolerated at Groklaw. The "GPL girl" aka Pamela Jones
runs only one of the many inordinately dishonest blogs dispensing the
GPL nonsense and FUD. She actually has the chutzpah to refer to herself
as a "journalist".

rjack