Re: Significance of the GP licence.

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 
>> On 5/5/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> > rejected not allowed unenforceable NOT a proof can NOT be ignored
>> 
>> That's enough multiple negatives to open a wormhole to the crank
>> universe of twist and spin. Your fellow crank asked for a judge
>> who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be ignored. I gave
>> him a judge who does not believe the terms of the GPL can be
>> ignored ("I am not persuaded ... that the release of the ...
>> source code ... didn't cure the breach.") None of your twisting
>
> She is simply saying that the GPL provision of "automatic termination"
> on a slightest breach is UNENFORCEABLE you idiot.

Do you still remember what we were talking about?  We were talking about
the non-existence of judges who are of the opinion that you can make use
of the GPLs permissions without heeding its terms.

If she considers a breach likely healed because the terms _have_ been
heeded after substantial delay, does that mean that she thinks one needs
not heed the terms?

I have no doubt that you'll form a sentence containing "idiot" or
"moron" as a reply, but please do try to remember what the topic was.

-- 
David Kastrup