[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
From: |
chrisv |
Subject: |
Re: More FSF hypocrisy |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:42:50 -0500 |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
> rat wrote:
>>
>> It is sort of cutting their own throat, though. If something has no
>> commercial value, being free as in beer, any case asking for monetary
>> damages for violating its copyright could simply result in a summary
>> judgement for zero compensation.
>
>The infringers would still be enjoined from creating further copies,
>which would be fine from a GPL enforcement point of view. I think the
>FSF might consider the loss of monetary damages for themselves to be
>a fair trade.
Rat thinks that their should not be any competition - that only one
"best choice" vendor should exist in the market..
--
"It is better that there only be one supplier who really is the best
so that everyone can have the best choice!" - Rat
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, amicus_curious, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, RonB, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
chrisv <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/24