[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: Fri, 19 May 2006 12:08:27 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> "IP value based business model" is waffling about things.  Just
>> what does he want to sell to whom?
> Suppose he wants to become an Apple (but without music and hardware
> business) and compete with other operating systems (not only on
> Macs).

So what stops him from doing so?

>> Anyway, so he finds that thereis already a market of operating systems
>> where hundreds of people compete by virtue of a cooperative business
> Bzzt. 
>> model, and he wants to have both cooperation and competition outlawed
> Thus far, he wants to have only the GPL outlawed and that would put
> the GPL'd code into quasi public domain (the penalty for copyright
> misuse) at least in Indiana.

Uh what?  You mean, if there are terms in Microsoft's EULA to be found
which don't jibe with the law, then XP is in the public domain?  I
find that implausible.

Apart from which, there are no terms in the GPL that are against the

>> in order to have a chance of marketing an inferior product which
>> does not yet exist?
> And how do you know that his product is inferior or that it doesn't
> exist?

If it wasn't inferior, he would not need the better stuff banned.  And
if it existed, he could point to it.

>> Why should the court feel they have to accommodate his wishes for
>> anticompetitive measures?
> What "anticompetitive measures"? The court should just apply the
> antitrust law to GPL predatory price fixing conspiracy.

There is no conspiracy here.  A conspiracy is a collusive agreement
between parties.  The GPL is out in the open, and everybody is free to
join the "conspiracy" or not, at his own choice.

With your terminology, every free market is a conspiracy of those who
choose to participate.

> [...]
>> So he wants to capitalize on the work of others without contributing
>> back 
> Not necessarily without contributing back.

Without contributing back.  Or else he would not have a problem with
the difference between BSD license and GPL.

>> and sues against people who don't allow their work to get accosted
>> in that manner.
> He's against "contributing back" under unlawful copyleft terms.

He is free to ignore the extra rights granted to him by copyleft.

>> So it is not his own IP he wants to sell, but that of others which
>> is freely available to him,
> Not only to him. The same IP is available to others as well.

And your point was?

>> and he wants to prohibit people making stuff freely available to
>> others since this ruins his market.
> He doesn't want to prohibit people making stuff freely available to
> others under lawful non-copyleft terms.

Since copyleft forms an additional permission, not a restriction with
relation to the standard provisions of copyright law, it can't be

>> Really, it takes a Terekhov to make an even more outrageously
>> stupid case than Wallace tried doing himself.
> dak, dak, dak.
> You're arguing against a caricature of his case, and not his case
> itself.

Yes, that's exactly what I say.  It takes a Terekhov to make an even
more outrageously stupid case than Wallace tried doing himself.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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