[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:18:38 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

"amicus_curious" <> writes:

> "David Kastrup" <> wrote:
>> "amicus_curious" <> writes:
>>> but that is meaningless to me.
>> Laws don't depend on you seeing a meaning in them.
> Who is talking about the law?

The judges, and you can read in the subject title that this thread is
about laws and their interpretation in court.

> I was talking about whether or not the lawsuit helps mankind and it
> plainly does not.

Definitely.  That's why it would be better if the defendants complied
with the license without the necessity to take this to court.

No lawsuit helps mankind since defendant and plaintiff could have right
away acted in the manner that the court sets forth.

But that's humanity.

> It is just an ego trip for the authors and a quick buck for the
> shysters.

Again, you are confused.  GPL lawsuits are not primarily about
attribution (you could sue for that equally well using the BSD license),
but about the provision of source code from _different_ authors, clearly
marked as such.  How can it be an "ego trip" if you tell somebody else
to show _his_ parts of the code with _his_ signature?

And how can it be a "quick buck" if, as you pretend to claim half of the
time, the cases are dismissed with unsavory conditions for the

So get a grip and a clue and try to make coherent sense instead of
merely foaming at your mouth.

>> Pathetic is not the worst description of your self-contradictory
>> ill-informed ill-judged postings.
> Oh, you loonies just don't like to admit that your cause is
> fundamentally worthless in this day and age.

So what happened to the quick buck again?

> No one takes apart complex applications in order to change them, there
> is no value in having all those restrictions as posed by the GPL.

So where do the lawsuits come from if nobody actually makes use of the
software in question?

> The actions of the SDLC prove that it is only viable as a way to
> harass those who might want to take advantage of FOSS.  With that kind
> of trouble, the users will be fewer than otherwise.

Free software does not benefit from users who won't contribute anything
back.  So there is no loss here.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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