Re: [!NEWS] The GNUtards Must Be Crazy

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > The renumeration they demand is contractual control of other's 
> > exclusive copyrights -- which is clearly illegal.
>
> You are, as usual, wrong. Copyright holders of GPLed software 
> require, in order for permission to copy and distribute to be 
> granted, that recipients of such distribution inherit the same 
> freedoms in the software that the distributors have - the right 
> to run, read, modify, and share the software. The distributors 
> have the completely free choice of distributing or not, but the 
> only rights they have to the GPLed software is what the rights 
> holders will grant them.

You're full of crap as usual Hyman. Try reading:

"§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only
to the material contributed by the author of such work, as
distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or
enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any
copyright protection in the preexisting material."

> If they don't like the terms, they need not distribute the 
> software.

That tautology is true of any contract -- you don't *have* to accept
it. That fact doesn't make an illegal term in a contract any less
illegal since, presumably, some folks want the GPL to have legal effect.

Your attempt to justify illegal contractual terms by claiming "you
don't have to accept them" demonstrates why I declare that you GNU
fans are always attempting to moooooooooooove the goalposts to evade
the obvious truth.

> The terms of the GPL are plainly not illegal. Alexander Terekhov 
> helpfully provided a link to a US court ruling which demonstrates
> this:
>
> <http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf>
>
>
>
>
>
> With respect to the General Public License (“GPL”), MySQL has not
>  demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits 
> or irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties’ experts
>  raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is
>  a derivative or an independent and separate work under GPL ¶ 2.
>  After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better argument here, but
>  the matter is one of fair dispute. Moreover, I am not persuaded
>  based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code
>  in July 2001 didn’t cure the breach.

ROFL. How in Heaven's name did ". . . but the matter is one of fair
dispute" morph into ". . . plainly not illegal". There you go again
streeeeeeeeetching the truth of matters.

> As you can see, the judge has read the GPL and understands that 
> the parties may have legitimate disputes about whether and how it
>  was properly followed, but she gives no indication that she 
> finds anything wrong with the license as a whole.

I have read the decision many times and the judge made *no* attempt
whatsoever to interpret the specific contractual terms of the GPL.
As I have previously pointed out, you haven't the slightest idea
concerning the difference between "obiter dicta" and "rationes
decidendi" in a court's ruling.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)