Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

[Alexander Terekhov]

me wrote:
> 
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > On 8/5/2010 12:52 PM, RJack wrote:
> >> Why bother to get it reversed? The useless opinion carries with it no
> >> precedential value whatsoever.
> >
> > Of course, the cranks in this newsgroup were quite pleased
> > when the earlier district court decision that their way. It
> > is natural to believe that confirming opinions are brilliant
> > and dissenting ones irrelevant. Nevertheless, we now have a
> > court opinion which unequivocally upholds copyright conditions
> > in an open license.
> 
> Please translate.

Hyman Rosen is spin doctoring CAFC's Jacobsen opinion in the same way as
Kuhn's Blog is spin doctoring the recent "GPL victory".

http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/08/03/more-gpl-success.html

"more-gpl-success"

LMAO!

"I'm really glad that a judge has agreed that the GPL is important
enough a license to warrant an injunction on out-of-compliance
distribution. This is a major step forward in GPL enforcement in the
USA. "

My, what a crook...

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.)