Re: Wallace's reply brief

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Yes, that is what "the physical act of transferring a copy" is all
>
> That is what 17 USC 109 is a about, stupid.
>
> Wallace wants to charge royalties for IP, not "the physical act of 
> transferring a copy".

Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is
_not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.

The GPL does not prohibit anybody from licensing or selling his own IP
at any price he desires.

The problem is that Wallace's product has no distinguishing qualities
setting it apart from existing GPLed software.  So he wants to have
the GPLed software removed.

That's not what the laws against anti-competitive behavior are about.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum