Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Mon Sep 05 2005 01:24 pm In article , david.golden@oceanfree.net says... > 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. Monsanto developed new breeds of plant, and offered them for sale. Nobody had to use them. The only scum involved in this issue are the communists who want to steal their property. [Remember how the activists whined about how GM crops would pollute other crops, but then when sterile GM plants were created they had them effectively banned.] > > [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. Changing the subject is not a valid response. - Gerry Quinn .