Re: GPL Mere Aggregation question

[rjack]

Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <HridnSGEI8yEhOnanZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@insightbb.com>,
> rjack  <danw6144@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > There was once a company called SCO [...]
>
> Remind me, who sued whom?
>
> This is reminiscent of David Irving, whose defenders talk about the
> "Deborah Lipstadt libel action" as if he were the victim of oppressive
> lawsuits, when in fact he sued her.
>
> -- Richard


>> Remind me, who sued whom?

SCO, was a really stupid company that initially released software under 
the GPL. Remember SCO Linux? After discovering the folly of the GPL 
business model they tried mindless litigation.

This demonstrates the wisdom of incorporating Apache or BSD style 
licensing in commercial software. You don't have to contend with 
mindless GPL morons, who wish to abolish the enforcement of intellectual 
property rights,
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html ,
by filing lawsuits claiming enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Any company that thinks that the long term capitalization of GPL 
software is possible deserves to eventually go bankrupt in litigation. 
Good riddance to SCO. They deserved it.

The IBM Corporation, the world's first computer monopolist, whose 
revenue stream from the enforcement of software patents is second to 
none is playing the GPL folks for fools. The Microsoft Corporation, the 
world's second computer monopolist, desperately needs GPL Linux software 
to hold about 25% of the market to avoid DOJ antitrust scrutiny.
Do GPL folks really think that long term they're going to win?

There is good evidence that commercial companies are planning future 
projects that incorporate real "open source" software under BSD and 
Apache style license due to the SFLC's intimidation tactics.

Regards,
rjack

-- "Standing involves two distinct inquiries. First, an Article III 
federal court must ask whether a plaintiff has suffered sufficient 
injury to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III 
... Second, if a plaintiff has suffered sufficient injury to satisfy 
Article III, a federal court must ask whether a statute has conferred 
"standing" on that plaintiff."; Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 
1169 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2004) --