[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Scripsit Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>

> > And in which jurisdiction can the supplier of Palladium legally forbid
> > the third party that I give my modified GCC to (and who does not have
> > any contractual relation with the supplier) from continuing my
> > development work?

> If the functionality in question is interoperation with proprietary
> palladium features, and if everyone who has palladium has to buy into
> a license that says they won't try to reverse engineer those features,
> what would this matter?

I still don't see your point. You have never explained how "reverse
engineering" enters the example at all.

I already asked you once to present an entire example with every step
in you argumentation explained, instead of just presenting one little
extera non-sequitur in each message and expect the readers to fill in
the blanks.

You responded to my request by giving another short sentense that did
not clarify anything, and leaving it to the readers to fill in the

I'm about to begin thinking you are a troll.

> Finally, remember that I'm talking about a hypothetical vaporware
> palladium

You seem to be revising your hypothetical example with new previously
undisclosed features each time I ask how you reach your conclusion.

Henning Makholm                     "That's okay. I'm hoping to convince the
                      millions of open-minded people like Hrunkner Unnerby."

Reply to: