Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- ACT: Perens Invokes the “Nuh Uh!” Defense, Calls Us Names

[Alexander Terekhov]

http://blog.actonline.org/2007/04/perens_invokes_.html

<quote>

April 10, 2007

Perens Invokes the “Nuh Uh!” Defense, Calls Us Names

Following up on a piece he wrote about my recent GPLv3 analyses, Peter 
Galli interviewed [http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2112267,00.asp] 
free software advocate Bruce Perens to get his response to the our 20 
pages of legal analysis.  His response can best be summed up as 
“Nuh Uh!” and “They’re ugly! (because they have Microsoft as a member)”

It is nice to know that there are a "couple of dozen" corporate 
attorneys on the GPLv3 committees are constantly evaluating legal 
risks.  Perhaps Mr. Perens should forward my papers to them so that 
they can actually read them before commenting on the validity of the 
arguments. 

To be honest, Mr. Perens has raised very little I can respond to.  He 
only dismisses the points I made in my paper as "nothing more than 
words" or "bogus", but with little analysis. Perens's answers simply 
do not address the main risk posed by GPLv3, as stated in the paper;  
GPLv3 may be interpreted as FSF tortiously interfering with a legal 
contract between two parties concerning intellectual property issues 
between them.  Mr. Perens cites to the case of Daniel Wallace which 
was based on a predatory pricing theory under another version of the 
GPL and not a group boycott theory as I was suggesting in respect of 
the GPLv3.

Different facts, different law, different result.  

It is also strange that he would counter my arguments - at least in 
part - by referring to GPLv2.  It was clearly my intent to address 
issues that arise under GPLv3.  Hopefully, Mr. Perens can share my 
papers with the FSF legal team so that we can find ways to improve 
the language and avoid these issues. These are important issues that 
deserve a full analysis and airing.

</quote>

regards,
alexander.