IBM monotheism

[jbor]

----------
>From: MalignD at aol.com


> I think I know what I'm disagreeing with (thanks, neverthless, for the help),
> which are facts.  Intellectual property was licensed, not stolen.

I think Eric admitted the "fact" of the licensing. I think his point might
have been that such licensing is also theft.

> If I'm
> wrong in saying that, it's because I have the facts wrong, not becuase I've
> misinterpreted.

Perhaps it's the ethical propriety which was being questioned, in which case
it is the interpretation of the fact of the license which is the issue.

I fear the next stop in this discussion to be the "history is fact"
argument, which can be fun and all but ...

best