[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:05:17 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > | Last time I looked, RedHat was getting money.
>> >
>> > This fact is compatible with Wallace's claim of predatory pricing
>> > conspiracy pursuant to the GPL. Those ancillary revenues from "no
>> > charge" GPL'd code can NOT "explain the lengths to which"
>> > Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HRed Hat "has gone" (see below). It could
>> > have been BSD and alike licensed code in its entirety which Red Hat
>> > could have used to produce those ancillary revenues, and Wallace
>> > doesn't have any problems with RedHat's use of BSD and alike
>> > licensed code which doesn't price-fix IP at predatory level.
>> Reality check: bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example,
>> the business model of Theo de Raadt.  His earnings are utterly peanuts
>> compared to those of RedHat.
> Bundling BSD and alike licensed code is, for example, the business
> model of Apple Computer, Inc. (OS X and Darwin).

No.  It is a resource of Apple computer, not a business model.  OS X
never has been licensed under a free software license.  You are again
being in fantasy land.  The only thing that ever has been free was
Darwin, and Apple has just clamped down on Darwin on the x86 platform:
no more source available.  The business model of Apple is selling
proprietary software.

A more interesting case would be Opensolaris (which is BSD-derived,
after all).  One will have to see how this pans out.  But it does not
appear like the market is too eager for non-copylefted free software.

>> > The Judge in Microsoft antitrust case ruled:
>> >
>> > "Proof that a profit-maximizing firm took predatory action should
>> > suffice to demonstrate the threat of substantial exclusionary effect;
>> > to hold otherwise would be to ascribe irrational behavior to the
>> > defendant. Moreover, predatory conduct, by definition as well as by
>> > nature, lacks procompetitive business motivation.
>> But you are glossing over the fact that there is hardly a more
>> competitive market than the Linux market.  It has hundreds of
>> participants and a very low barrier of entry.
> What you call "the Linux market" (packaging, patches delivery, etc.)
> are ancillary markets to the market Wallace's case is about.

Hardly.  Wallace is complaining that he can't sell the "intellectual
property" he would like to sell because nobody is buying.  But the
"ancillary markets" are the one paying for development.  You don't
make money off an operating system without it being employed anywhere.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]