Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Sorry for being off-topic (and risking to feed a troll):
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 22:36 -0800, Dennis Peterson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:16 PM 3/27/2006, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
That's what my license says - and I paid for it. IP theft is never
^^^^^^^
irrelevant.
At least in the laws of continental Europe there is no such thing as "IP
theft" (and I doubt it exists in anglo-american jurisdiction either) -
only in the propaganda wording and advertisements of companies which
live from managing so-called "IP rights".
not all the licenses for solaris 9 are the same. do your research first
before you suggest I or anyone else is engaging in IP theft.
I'm using Sol 9 commercially. I'm not a student. I'm not exploring it
for possible inclusion in my world. I'm using it in a business.
Therefore I have to pay for it and I did. It's the law. If I had not I
^^^^^^^^^^^^
You should decide if you speak about the law (as such) or your personal
contracts/licenses which may even be partially or completely void if
they don't comply to the law as such.
Mixing up those things doesn't do anyone any good.
would be engaging in IP theft. I didn't say you were engaging in IP
theft. There is no way I can determine that. What you understood in what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Neither can we or some lawyer - the only one who "determines" that is
the judge in court.
Could you please stop the false propaganda (from the "pro total IP
business" camp) and all other misleading claims.
[...]
Bernd
http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/government/configure/group/ch_os_plat_sol9_1.html
dp
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
