Tim Ransom's Feeble Mind

Message ID: 182053 Posted By: mitmosnar Posted On: 2004-09-18 17:26:00 Subject: Criticism well taken? Quadruple Plonk!! Recs: 0 "I am not a troll nor an astroturfer" Right. I can also operate a web browser: 177592 'Is that how you cheat and mislead? You put words out there and take them back by stating "that is what it was suppose to do", not what it does. geeze, KNOW WONDER SCOX has a case against you, but being the scoundrels you are is having a long drawn out time of it. You just cannot reason with a cheater misleader. Its best that the truth stays out of your arguments. .. Then shines through.' 177533 'It took PJ and another to set up a money making insurance scam to protect users from the harmful affects of linux. Wonder how much money she is making on that? Who ever said linux slaves work for free. There is always an alterior motive.' 177551 'you lose, every which way you lose. linux is not freedom, capitalism is. ...

Message ID: 177788 Posted By: mitmosnar Posted On: 2004-09-08 13:57:00 Subject: Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101 Recs: 0 Or like this: http://home.1asphost.com/timransom/fudd2.jpg thanks again, ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "mitmosnar" under the following license: License:  CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0 ------------------------------------------------------------

Message ID: 177782 Posted By: mikecwaslurker Posted On: 2004-09-08 13:38:00 Subject: Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101 Recs: 1 > Wow, what a moron! Hem. The accepted version is "...what a maroon!". If you can hold one ear pointing upwards while the other is bent in half over the lower face, holding a carrot in your right hand, the effect is even better. ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "mikecwaslurker" under the following license: License:  CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0 ------------------------------------------------------------

Message ID: 177770 Posted By: laughing_vergil Posted On: 2004-09-08 13:24:00 Subject: Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101 Recs: 7 As always, terekhov fails his intelligence roll. Terekhov's position can only seem reasonable as long as you separate the making of GPL-authorized derivitive works from the concept of accepting the GPL as a license. Unfortunately for terekhov's theories (and also for his blood pressure - he plonked me for bringing up questions he could not or would not answer), once you make the derivitive work, you have indicated your acceptance of the GPL, since otherwise you have no legal right to make the derivitive work, or even unaltered copies of the original (The FSF's opinion to the contrary, and in accord with terekhov's position in other areas, the law controls, not the opinion of the FSF, and the law says that you cannot make copies except for certain, strictly limit exceptions specified in 17 USC). So, you either accept the GPL *as ...

Message ID: 177761 Posted By: klaxon5961 Posted On: 2004-09-08 13:07:00 Subject: Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101 Recs: 0 Wow, what a moron! It's _almost_ enough to make me want to resort to the 'Ignore' button. ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "klaxon5961" under the following license: License:  CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0 ------------------------------------------------------------

Message ID: 177661 Posted By: edgarmoon Posted On: 2004-09-08 10:01:00 Subject: Re: The Final Word: 17 USC 101 Recs: 3 Jerekhov is not wrong here (but he still is not right). You do not have to agree to the gpl to redistribute, you only have to agree to redistribute modified code. Herekhov can download as many copies of gpl'd software, give them out or sell them, and he does not have to agree to the GPL. This is written in the gpl. This is why his argument is so baked, he doesn't need 109 to help him, he's already been given that permission. However, he argues he can remove the GPL claims from that software and then redistribute them. Doing so would modify the program, therefore he no longer has an exact copy, therefore sect 109 does not apply. He is an idiot, he is trying to confuse people. Think of him as SCO arguing a case in court, they are wrong, everyone knows they are wrong, but they get magical points for how long they can argue before the case is d...