Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : David Golden
Date : Fri Sep 02 2005 07:35 pm

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> Bit of a change of subject here.  As I understand it, contract law
> usually takes care of these cases.  

Because apple+tree information patterns aren't (or weren't - see scum
like monsanto et al.) copyrightable or patentable.

 > [More stuff about apples, and no reply at all to the simple
> [observation
> I made.]
> 
You simply fail to perceive it as a reply because you apparently 
can't see the point of it, the contrast between the lack of restrictions
on apple/tree information+medium usage and restrictions on certain
other information+medium usage.

.