From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264958AbTF3Pfp (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:35:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264985AbTF3Pfp (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:35:45 -0400 Received: from h80ad2713.async.vt.edu ([128.173.39.19]:19086 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264958AbTF3Pfo (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:35:44 -0400 Message-Id: <200306301549.h5UFnvNS028059@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Dell vs. GPL In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:56:07 PDT." From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-2010549916P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:49:56 -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_-2010549916P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:56:07 PDT, Andre Hedrick said: > When they tell you they will not open a case on your behalf until a > registered copyright is in hand, that point real hard. The part you're missing here is the part where the offending vendor ends up Doing The Right Thing, either because they've become enlightened or just because they realize compliance is easier/cheaper than a lawsuit. Remember *WHY* the GPL is still untested in court - things rarely progress that far. --==_Exmh_-2010549916P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE/AFwkcC3lWbTT17ARAma9AKCgiXIoupc/CTlXllzYCcls590oLgCg305M dJNuCb2vUNv6CCemus794Fc= =xz2h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-2010549916P--