Re: GPL Software Gold Standard

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Martin Dickopp wrote:
> [...]
> > Since you explicitly reply to a request for legal knowledge, I have to
> > ask what the basis of your legal knowledge is: 
> 
> Google.
> 
> > Are you a certified lawer, ...
> 
> No.
> 
> > Is the above text legal advice, 
> 
> Same status as the FSF's GPL FAQ.

Ok, so after consulting with several lawyers and law professors, and
having seen through a lot of legal processes, legal negotiations with
large legal departments, and creating widely accepted legal documents,
you have decided to distill the gist of some questions that occurred
repeatedly into your postings.

So if your posting is the same status as the GPL FAQ:

What are the law professors that you have consulted to corroborate
your wisdom?

Against which large software outlets has your theory been tested and
prevailed?  We are talking about things the size of Motorola (gcc
variants), Next computers (objective C Compiler), Fujitsu-Siemens and
Cisco (router software) and so on.

That is just a small number of companies that have decided to rather
fold than play their cards in court.  And it is not that they are
easily bluffed out of litigation, especially when pitted against some
small charity with limited financial resources.

That's the background of the GPL FAQ.

Where is the background of your postings?  It would appear that no
court, no legal department, nobody of importance would share your
opinion.

And so you turn to this Usenet group where still nobody shares your
opinion so that you can bask in your pipe dream that you are being
refuted here just because everybody is biased here.

Forget it.  Out in the "real world", everybody is biased, too, it
would appear, including everybody in the legal profession.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum