Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 
> Qua, 2006-06-21 Ã s 17:09 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > Note also Wallace's own (in the other case currently under appeal):
> >
> > -----
> > Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose
> > because a lack of competition removes not just product choice but
> > without competitive reward the incentive to improve product quality
> > disappears.
> > -----
> >
> > http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
> 
> That's the same Wallace whose single case was dismissed for futility,
> right?

Wrong. See below. Wallace filed two cases. This case is currently under 
appeal.

> Also the same Wallace whose single case included a quote from the judge
> saying the exact opposite of that, right?

Exact opposite of what?

> 
> Or do you think the judge was drunk (as you so famously insulted the
> juridic system so often)?

Uhmm. Let's see. Judge Young dismissed because according to him, 
Wallace "has not identified an anticompetitive effect". And yet his 
colleague Judge Tinder had no problems with Wallace's identification 
of anticompetitive effect ("By making certain software programs 
available to users at no charge, the GPL may be discouraging 
developers from creating new and better programs because they will 
not receive compensation for their work, thereby reducing the number 
of quality programs available to users. This may be considered 
anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be inferred from what 
Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, this 
court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a claim for 
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule of reason 
doctrine"). 

So one of them must have been drunk (in the sense of having somewhat 
distorted view of reality). No?

regards,
alexander.