Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean

[Snit]

RonB stated in post grrlk7$644$1@news.motzarella.org on 4/11/09 8:01 PM:

> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>> Rjack still hasn't specified which of the terms in the GPL are illegal.
>> And he protests:
>> 
>>> Not at all. Try reading my posts instead of denying and lying.
>> ...
>>> You been told many, many times. Review past posts I've made instead of
>>> just denying and lying.
>> 
>> OK, readers, I need your assistance here.
>> 
>> I admit that I have not read everything that Rjack has ever posted.
>> Nor, I suspect, has anybody else, with the possible exception of
>> amicus_curious. But in the sample that I did read, I have not seen Rjack
>> ever specify exactly what in the GPL is illegal. For a short while I
>> thought he was referring to antitrust, but not, he said he was not.
>> 
>> Has anybody seen any specific description from Rjack in his posts that
>> tells us what in the GPL is illegal?
> 
> I killfiled Rjack shortly after his first message showed up. I have no
> idea what he's yammering on about -- but I'm guessing he's pretty much a
> crank in the "Snit mode." It doesn't matter how convincing your argument
> might be -- he'll just rewind and re-spew -- starting the whole thing
> all over again.
> 
> That's the crank way. Best to just killfile him.

LOL!  You imply that you made reasoned arguments in response to my comments.

Hey, I bet you that you cannot find a single example.

And you *know* I am right.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]