On 31 Aug 2006 23:10:26 GMT, Bob Tennent wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:57:28 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > The original article seems to muddy the watter even more than anything
> > else.
>
> Not as much as your comments.
Hardly. If anything, i'm pointing out the mud.
> > Also many of the interpretations seem, well, convenient. For example, the
> > claim that you have to make GPL'd source code available to those who have
> > not received a copy of the software.
>
> How does that "muddy the watter" [sic]?
Because it's not true, and the article saying so muddies the water.
> > Finally, the claim that the GPL has been directly upheld in court is plain
> > outright wrong. You might argue that it's been indirectly upheld, but no
> > court has directly ruled on the validity of the GPL. Anywhere.
>
> Nor has there been any need to. Violators of the licence, no matter how
> rich, have backed off when they realized how little chance they had to
> have it ruled invalid. If your friends at Microsoft are so confident that
> it's invalid, they could try their luck in any jurisdiction in the world.
How does this support the claim that the article made that the GPL has been
directly upheld in court?
|
|
