From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 17 14:00:46 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28AFA37B401 for ; Sat, 17 May 2003 14:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0B043FAF for ; Sat, 17 May 2003 14:00:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown[12.242.158.67]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with ESMTP id <2003051721004405200ph764e>; Sat, 17 May 2003 21:00:44 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.9/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h4HL2RKc061995; Sat, 17 May 2003 14:02:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.9/8.12.5/Submit) id h4HL2ELb061992; Sat, 17 May 2003 14:02:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: jojo set sender to swear@attbi.com using -f To: Terry Lambert References: <3EC2FB53.67559AB6@bellatlantic.net> <5.0.2.1.1.20030516073557.01e053b8@popserver.sfu.ca> <3EC5BE83.88B2C630@mindspring.com> From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: 17 May 2003 14:02:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: <3EC5BE83.88B2C630@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Lines: 15 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: chat@freebsd.org cc: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: a public relations opportunity for BSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 21:00:46 -0000 Terry Lambert writes: > Who said anything about "by mistake"? If you release under > a particular license, it's on purpose. Unless it's by mistake. :) > Works only if they terminate the already outstanding licenses: > Ex Post Facto. Or if the court terminates a license term which was mistakenly agreed to by the contracting parties. I think they call it "equity". I'm not positive, but I seem to recall courts doing things like that when it finds that some kinds/levels of "uninjustice" is being done which is not addressed by normal law.