[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, 22 Jun 2006 12:39:56 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> I don't see anything like "RedHat IP -- $0" listed on their page.  In
> You can't find the GPL (IP -- $0) and all sort of GPL'd stuff on their 
> page? Very interesting.
>> fact, they retain their IP and don't give their copyright away.  They
> Outright transfers of title in IP is not what Wallace's case is
> about.  Wallace case is about GPL licensing agreement (pooling the
> copyright and patent rights in derivative and collective works under
> the GPL), not some copyright assignment agreements (something a la
> copyright assignment forms issued by the FSF for their official
> branch of the GNU project in which the title in IP belongs to the
> FSF and only the FSF).

Congratulations, you get it.  RedHat is not selling its IP for $0.  It
is offering _one_ way of obtaining a licensed copy for $0 (if you
consider downloading expenses non-existent).  It is also offering
other ways for other prices.  So they are not selling their IP, and
there is no fixed price for licensed copies of it, either.

>> provide, however, downloads for $0, so they price a particular form
>> of _copies_ at no charge.
> And once again you attempt to misinterpret Wallace's case.

Well, he _has_ no case, remember?  That's what the court finally rules
after giving him lots of leeway to actually state a case.  Thus every
interpretation of his "case" has to be a misinterpretation.

> Wallace case is not about copies (material objects). It's about
> licensing of exclusive rights established by copyright and patent
> laws.

But licenses are bound to particular physical copies.  This is the
reason why "Wallace case" is not a case at all.  "IP" implies the
right to pick the license for your work.  And RedHat does not give
that right away.  As a consequence, the only party that has standing
to sue for breach of RedHat's copyright is RedHat itself.

>> They also price other copy forms at larger charges.
> RedHat's media kits are optional and gratis.
>>          It is like a free art catalogue: you are free to cut and
>> paste and frame stuff from the catalogue for your home, but they
>> make their money with people buying the pieces advertised in that
>> manner.
> RedHat doesn't sell GPL'd IP to public. GPL'd IP (apart from
> outright transfer of title) is price-fixed at "no charge" and is
> available gratis (pursuant to the GPL).

Nonsense.  They retain their copyright and don't sell it.  Licensing
is concerned with physical copies.  This difference is crucial for
making a case, and conflating it like you and Wallace is not going to
fly in court.

>> > Ancillary service that they supply is priced far above costs of
>> > providing the service (above predatory levels) and it is used to
>> > recoup loses from GPL conspiracy and turn a profit. Got it now?
>> It is called advertising.
> You're hallucinating. 

Good to hear.  You have refrained from insults for so long that I had
almost been afraid you did not realize you were with the back to the
wall with your "legal" arguments.  Thanks for setting the record
straight again.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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