[linux-elitists] So, Microsoft spent that good will already.
rick at linuxmafia.com
Tue Jul 28 08:49:43 PDT 2009
Quoting Greg Folkert (greg at gregfolkert.net):
> Since the SFLC says that Microsoft had already violated (and was in
> violation of) the GPLv2 and came into compliance when it released the 20
Honestly, would it have hurt you to provide either a quotation or a URL?
Here, let me help: http://www.sdtimes.com/link/33641
That incredibly brief and detail-free claim from SFLC doesn't anywhere
contradict what I said. Perhaps you didn't notice?
Brad Kuhn -- who is not a lawyer, and I see no claim that SFLC attorneys
spoke to this issue at all, let alone participated in a code review --
impliedly claims that Microsoft Corporation's patches were a derivative
work of unnamed coders' prior kernel work. To refresh your memory, I
said this was possible, and asked you to detail the code review you did
that supported your _own_ half-assed assertion. You of course ignored
Anyway, I would be interested to know about Brad Kuhn's code review. ;->
And then maybe he can go on to tell us which individual's (or
individuals') copyrights were violated through exercise of their
reserved rights without permission (what you confusedly mischaracterise
as "violating the GPL"), and about any lawsuit intentions they might
have over that tort and what they would expect to gain. ("Coming into
compliance" would not erase the preceding alleged tort.)
_Real_ copyright conflicts involve questions of derivative work theory,
legal standing, rights & remedies, etc. I realise those are probably
alien concepts in your world, but, as Thomas Sowell says, "Reality is
Rick Moen There was an old man Said with a laugh, "I
rick at linuxmafia From Peru, whose lim'ricks all Cut them in half, the pay is
.com Looked like haiku. He Much better for two."
More information about the linux-elitists