[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wallace's reply brief
From: |
Ferd Burfel |
Subject: |
Re: Wallace's reply brief |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:40:03 -0500 |
"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message
44D1D842.32191CCC@web.de">news:44D1D842.32191CCC@web.de...
>
> And only the GPL. The GPL is the only choice to obtain rights to property
> locked in the GPL pool (don't confuse it with non-bazaar models a la MySQL
> and Trolltech where no GPL-only forks exist). The GPL doesn't allow
> sublicensing under different "commercial" terms along the lines of the
> CPL/EPL/BSD/etc.
Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't allow
people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no charge) and
turn around and make a commerical product out of it. And I suppose you
think that if Wallace is somehow successful in his endeavor, the GPL will
somehow be magically nulled and voided, and those that wish will be free to
profit from the exGPL code. As if the copyrights on that code are somehow
dissolved as well.
But you know....the GPL is used voluntarily, not just by IBM, Redhat and
Novell, but by many other companies and individuals. No one forces them to
license their code under it, they might just as well license it under the
CPL/EPL/BSD, etc. But they don't, and Wallace will have a hard time suing
everyone that ever used the GPL.
Which brings us back to "non-parties" and such: (IBM Brief, Footnote 7)"The
existence of so many distributors of GPL software other than the three
defendants named here also raises serious questions whether the injunction
plaintiff seeks could be effective in preventing the use of the Linux
operating system, as those NOT A PARTY to this case would clearly not be
bound by any such injunction." (emphasis added) So any injunction against
IBM et.al would not apply to, say Debian, Ubuntu, etc. Wallace would have
to sue all of them as well.
Oh, and I "get it", I undertand what Wallace wants, or at least what he says
he wants. He wants nasty old IBM, Redhat, and Novell to stop releasing
software under the GPL because it "prevents Plaintiff Daniel Wallace from
marketing his own computer operating system as a competitor". The problem
with that argument, as has been pointed out to Wallace, by a real live judge
is that "as alleged, the GPL in no way forecloses other operating
systems from entering the market. Instead, it merely acts as a means by
which certain software may be copied, modified and redistributed without
violating the software's copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages,
rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer
operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers."
(Wallace v. FSF, Entry Granting Reasserted Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34)
Page 6). And after reading the CPL/EPL, the main difference I see is the
commerical clause, so I can only guess that Wallace really wants the same
thing you want, to be able to plunder and pillage the work of others for
your own profit. Is there really and truly no CPL/EPL/BSD software that can
compare to that which is GPLed? Surely the GPL doesn't have a monopoly on
talented programmers.
And I'll save some time for both of us. You will no doubt wish to counter
with something like: "The court understands Mr. Wallace's argument that the
GPL may be preventing him from marketing his own operating system, and, for
the purposes of the instant motion, accepts that allegation as true.",
(Wallace v. FSF, Entry Granting Reasserted Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34)
Page 6), you will no doubt "accidently" neglect to add "However, while this
may be significant enough from Mr. Wallace's perspective, a plaintiff must
prove not only an injury to him or herself, but to the market as well, which
Mr. Wallace has failed to do."
Now, Redhat/Novell's brief is quite compelling as well, wherein they assert
that since Wallace lost (even after 4 amended complaints) basically the same
case against FSF, his case against IBM et.al. is dead as well. I agree.
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, (continued)
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/08/02
- Message not available
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, John Hasler, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Ferd Burfel, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Ferd Burfel, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/03
- Re: Wallace's reply brief,
Ferd Burfel <=
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, John Hasler, 2006/08/03
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, John Hasler, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04