Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th May 2006 20:12 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 125323
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-07-06
"Yes, that's exactly what is being discussed."
No , your discussing copyright of Linus to the kernel , thats what your discussing.
"The kernel is licensed under the GPL and the email alledges that Kororaa breaks this license."
close enough , yes.
"I did not. I simply pointed out that contrary to your claims the GPL legaly is a copyright license. "
I said that the GPL is not a normal copyright license. I never said its not a legal copyright license , go read what I wrote.
"Show me one.
Quote what I wrote, write up how you understand it and then show me how what I wrote was a lie. "
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14616&comment_id=125120
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14616&comment_id=125193
I understand it the way you wrote it , not what you tought you wrote.
"As there obviously is no sense trying to reason with you,"
If you made sense you would not need to reason with me.
"assuming that your ... gnu site about free software"
Why ? I read it probably , some I fully agreew with others , I see are politically motivated and disagree with.
" so that in future discussions you won't make any more false claims about free software "
I dont make false claim.
"and thus stop to give free software a bad name"
I dont give free software a bad name.
Its not because of me that GNU/Linux GPL graphic driver dont exist today. I am probably one of the few who say we really have a need for them.