[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNU licenses

From: alexander . terekhov
Subject: Re: GNU licenses
Date: 4 Sep 2006 14:31:56 -0700
User-agent: G2/0.2

David Kastrup wrote:
> Of course it does.  I make a living from it.

Care to elaborate? Who pays you and for what exactly?

> > the licensing of rights to your work (and its derivatives) is fixed
> > at no charge (recall that Wallace says that price-fixing derivatives
> > below cost is unlawful, and that the 7th Circuit Court have yet to
> > review his claim "de novo").
> Wallace claims a lot of nonsense when the day is long.  Which is why
> his cases get thrown out of court for lack of stating a case after
> several attempts.

How many times do you want me to quote Judge Tinder, retard?

that Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which
can be Granted and that Plaintiff's Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth
Violation of the Rule of Reason (but, unfortunately, being in a
drunk condition, he was fooled by the FSF to believe that Plaintiff Has
Alleged Antitrust Injury). Judge Tinder ruled: "To establish a Section
claim under the rule of reason test, a plaintiff must prove that "(1)
that the defendants contracted, combined, or conspired among each
(2) that the combination or conspiracy produced adverse,
effects within relevant product and geographic markets; (3) that the
objects of and the conduct pursuant to that contract or conspiracy were

illegal; and (4) that the plaintiffs were injured as a proximate result

of that conspiracy." Tunis Bros. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 952 F.2d 715,
(3d Cir. 1991). In this case, it appears that Mr. Wallace has made the
necessary allegations of FSF's unlawful contract and conduct. In his
Amended Complaint, he specifically alleges that FSF conspired with
including International Business Machines Corporation, Red Hat Inc. and

Novell Inc., to control the price of available software within a
market through the GPL. Primarily at issue in FSF's motion is whether
Wallace has adequately alleged that the GPL had a resulting

[... reduction in IP output under GPL price-dumping conspiracy ...]

This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be
inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint.
Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a

claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule of
reason doctrine."

> Anyway, you may not charge extra for the act of licensing, but nobody
> forces you to make the source available to anybody but your paying
> customers.

Dak, dak, dak. ROFL. True retard you are. Take the FSF's GPL quiz.

Or just visit
(10 common misunderstandings about the GPL)

8. Distributors only need to offer source code to their customers

If distributors opt to provide an offer for source code, then under
section 3b, the offer must be good for three years, and must apply
to "any third party." No distinction is made between commercial
customers and anyone else who might be interested in the source

See also the GPLv3d2 rationale/clarification, stupid.


reply via email to

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