[Humberto Massa] > > It had equated the two of them in the first part of the phrase.
[Raul Miller] > The GPL did not use the word "equals". > Neither "that is to say" nor "namely" are equal to "equals". Are we to understand that your argument hinges on such fine semantic distinctions as claiming that "that is to say" does not connote equivalency? Have you nothing better with which to prop up your point of view? (I'd come up with an analogy for how absurd this is beginning to sound, but by now I suspect you'd entirely miss the point, purposely or not.)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
