Story
Grsecurity stops issuing public patches, citing trademark abusePreview
History
2015-09-11 12:52
I'm saying they are wrong.I provided more than one source for the non-recoverability of the GPL. You've provided NO SOURCES for your claim, just your own paranoid delusions based upon
If the FSF was to point out flaws or errors, such utterances could be used against them in court in a caseThen they would simply keep quiet on the issue. There's no benefit to them lying. Instead, they're saying it because case law backs them up.
Why do you think the GPL has gone through 3 revisions so far?I already listed the reasons for GPLv3.
I really don't understand how you think you can argue with me from a position of ignoranceI don't understand how you think you can argue with the legal sources I've cited, from your
And look, here's yet another source that's right on-the-nose:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-1&id=163
2015-09-11 13:00
I'm saying they are wrong.No, that's NOT what you said... You said they were talking about GPLv3, remember? Now that I've throughly discredited that claim, you choose to switch your claim around to something else entirely.
I provided m
If the FSF was to point out flaws or errors, such utterances could be used against them in court in a caseThen they would simply keep quiet on the issue. There's no benefit to them lying. Instead, they're saying it because case law backs them up.
So they keep their mouth shutExcept they didn't keep their mouth shut. They weighed-in and specifically said the GPL (v2) is not revocable.
Why do you think the GPL has gone through 3 revisions so far?I already listed the reasons for GPLv3. Revocablity isn't one of them.
I really don't understand how you think you can argue with me from a position of ignoranceI don't understand how you think you can argue with the legal sources I've cited, from your position of extreme ignorance. No matter how many times I prove you completely and totally wrong on one issue or another, you just ignore it and twist your claims around next time around so you don't have to acknowledge your error, and
And look, here's yet another source that's right on-the-nose:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-1&id=163
2015-09-11 13:05
I'm saying they are wrong.No, that's NOT what you said... You said they were talking about GPLv3, remember? Now that I've throughly discredited that claim, you choose to switch your claim around to something else entirely.
I provided multiple sources for the non-re
If the FSF was to point out flaws or errors, such utterances could be used against them in court in a caseThen they would simply keep quiet on the issue. There's no benefit to them lying. Instead, they're saying it because case law backs them up.
So they keep their mouth shutExcept they didn't keep their mouth shut. They weighed-in and specifically said the GPL (v2) is not revocable.
Why do you think the GPL has gone through 3 revisions so far?I already listed the reasons for GPLv3. Revocablity isn't one of them.
I really don't understand how you think you can argue with me from a position of ignoranceI don't understand how you think you can argue with the legal sources I've cited, from your position of extreme ignorance. No matter how many times I prove you completely and totally wrong on one issue or another, you just ignore it and twist your claims around next time around so you don't have to acknowledge your error, and just pretend you weren't making incorrect, crazy and unsupportable claims a few minutes earlier...
And look, here's yet another source that's right on-the-nose:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-1&id=163
Moderation
Time | Reason | Points | Voter |
---|---|---|---|
2015-09-15 09:20 | Insightful | +1 | pete@pipedot.org |
2015-09-13 13:08 | Insightful | +1 | tanuki64@pipedot.org |
Junk Status
Not marked as junk