Re: [future of drivers?] a proposal for binary drivers.

[Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>]

On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 20:25 +0100, Tim Tassonis wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 20:00 +0100, Tim Tassonis wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 10:24 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> >>>> Maybe not under (US-American) copyright, but under continental
> >>>> European authors rights there are such possibilities (I leave it to
> >>>> lawyers if and when they apply) and you can't even remove them with
> >>>> contracts (as with all law stuff).
> >>>>
> >>> Please refrain from knee-jerk USA-bashing, you said yourself you don't
> >>> know the law.
> >>>
> >>> Lee
> >>>
> >> Are you completely out of your head or what? When somebody reminds you 
> >> of the fact that U.S. law is not the only law in the world and that some 
> >> things may be different in other countries you call him a knee-jerking 
> >> USA-basher???
> >>
> > 
> > No I was referring to the implication that the GPL is not enforceable
> > under US copyright law.
> 
> Well, I'd really like to know how your patriotic sentiments were hurt by 
> Bernd in the above sentence. Maybe we Europeans are not compassionate 
> enough, it seems, as I can see absolutely nothing anti-american in his 
> posting. Maybe mentioning the existence of other countries/laws is 
> nowadays considered anti-american?

I'm sorry I posted that, this thread is OT anyway.  I'm just annoyed
when people who don't know US law speculate about how terrible it is
(like the common misconception that reverse engineering for
interoperability is banned in the US).  Of course I don't think that
pointing out differences is anti-American.

Lee