Re: GPL v3 Draft
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> On 17 Jan 2006 11:28:14 -0500, Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I understand that you are willing to and have posted totally
> > irrelevant regulations as support for claims that you provide no
> > direct or plausible indirect support for.
> Well, I was just hinting at disbarring Moglen.
Last I heard, bar associations required some evidence of improper
behavior before they would disbar a member.
> > I understand that the page you quote there is not specific as to why
> > it is "a US legal mandate", and so it is consistent with Dr Moglen's
> > claim that no one seems to know why it is done that way.
> Same answer as to "why the copyright act defines "derivative work"
> not as in the GNU GPL". Go ask Moglen.
> Seriously, if it's not in some statute, I suspect that there was some
> court ruling or two.
Seriously, I'm just asking you to back that up instead of hand-waving.