[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Wallace's reply brief

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Wallace's reply brief
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:13:47 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
> 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.

Uh. You're a real idiot. Copyright is a BUNDLE of rights. The outright 
transfers of ownership of ALL rights (copyright) is not an issue in 
Wallace case apart that 

IBM et al. state [IBM Brief at 15, ¶1] “The ownership interests
contributors to software licensed under the GPL might have in their
modifications are seriously limited, given that any distribution of those
modifications must be done under the terms of the GPL”. This statement
constitutes a mea culpa with respect to the extension of “intellectual
property rights beyond those conferred by Congress” [see IBM Brief at 15,
The contractual extension of control to the copyrights of all third
parties who accept the GPL offer is an egregious misuse of copyright that
may rise to the level of an antitrust violation. (“[W]e left open the question
whether copyright misuse, unless it rises to the level of an antitrust
violation. . .”) (Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. Wiredata. Inc., 350
F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003)).
The GPL purports to extend it’s intellectual property control to all
third parties’ software patents as well as copyrights. (“Finally, any free
program is threatened constantly by software patents. . . To prevent this,
we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's
free use or not licensed at all.”) [Ex A (GPL) at 1].


reply via email to

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