[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
From: |
Rahul Dhesi |
Subject: |
Re: More FSF hypocrisy |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:02:27 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
nn/6.7.0 |
Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>Since the license is strictly construed against the drafter the
>license, because of promissory estoppel, would provide a defense to
>copyright infringement.
As I recall, when I asked you for what was promised, I got no answer.
--
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Keith Thompson, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Rahul Dhesi <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Thufir Hawat, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27