Alexander Terekhov writes: > On 17 Jan 2006 11:28:14 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
