Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rjack wrote:
[...]
> I don't understand all the bluster and noise concerning this erroneous
> decision by the CAFC. The CAFC itself has ruled while sitting en banc

Hyman Rosen is playing naive brainwashed GNUtian here.

This thread reminded me of the following titbit:

http://www.law.washington.edu/lct/swp/Law/derivative.html

"To effectuate the goals of the free software movement, the drafters of
the GPL urge a generally expansive definition of derivative work. The
great irony is, of course, that such an expansive definition would have
second order consequences that are exactly counter to the goals of the
proponents of Free Software. A broad definition of derivative would give
code authors ***less*** freedom to create software that they can truly
call their own and do with as they please. And if naive analytic
approaches such as "subclassing equals derivation" reign..."

He he.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)