Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> >> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is. >> >> >> >> Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation. I can easily >> >> find any number of people that disagree with RMS about this, so >> >> who's right? >> > >> > If you or other people claim that linking is not a case of derivation, >> > they can advance arguments about it. Your arguments will be taken even >> > more seriously by volunteering a reasonable chunk of change to defend >> > such an argument in a court of law. I think 1-5M US$ ought to suffice. >> >> Oh yes, I forgot. Whoever has more money is right. > > In cases of ambiguity, correct. Which is why "ambiguous" means "no" as > far as Debian is concerned.
Show me one case in law that isn't ambiguous. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
