[linux-elitists] So, Microsoft spent that good will already.

Greg Folkert greg at gregfolkert.net
Tue Jul 28 12:30:22 PDT 2009

On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 08:49 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> 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
> > KLOC...
> 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
> the question.
> 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
> not optional."

OK Rick, you are right, I'll stop playing this charade. You've proven
yourself as ever adept at missing the point. Nick saw through it. Greg
even confirmed my suspicions about the SFLC and its "sayings".

Rick, I'm sorry you can't let a baited hook go un-swallowed.
greg at gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0  2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74  E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Alternate Fingerprint: 455F E104 22CA  29C4 933F 9505 2B79 2AB2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20090728/71270277/attachment.pgp>

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list