[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:41:27 -0400

"Alan Mackenzie" <> wrote in message news:hat7ab$2oop$
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <> wrote:

"David Kastrup" <> wrote in message
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

"David Kastrup" <> wrote in message

Now I would not put it past you to try to set up a business centered
around this purportive loophole.  But nobody in his right mind would
care to do important business with you anyway.  You come across as
far too willing to take unnecessary risks.  Your compulsive desire to
prove yourself clever and the rest of the world stupid is simply too
dangerous in a business partner.

Very few have ever succeeded in any business centered around open
source software.

More than those in any business centered against open source software.
Most of the openings against open source software appear to be in Usenet
trolling.  The former is a billion dollar market.  The latter does not
appear to feed more than a handful of people.  And they occupy
identities like busy Potemkin villagers.

What use do you anticipate for pulling something that stupid out of thin
air?  You folk seem to think that a mere sneer is an adequate response to
anything that you cannot answer otherwise.  That is why you are still in
last place.

Well, what a comparison!  I wonder who would come top in a "get a life"
poll - There're people like David, who write and maintain useful free

Is that so? What software and why do you think it useful? I would rather that he was able to make intelligent comments in regard to the topic thread, of course, but I am always curious.

He made the rather audacious and totally unsupported statement that the "GPL software market is worth billions by now" and he ducks and runs from the challenge that his notion is simply false. When challenged he reverts to calling me a troll and asserts that is answer enough. Perhaps the facts of the matter would devastate his ego and he hides because of that, but regardless of the reason, the response is worthless.

Then there're people like you, who spend their time and energy
beavering away through legal reports searching for something which can be
twisted to attack the GPL, or just posting general disparagement about
free software.

I think that you yourself are over sensitive as well. I do not "attack" the GPL at all, nor am I disparaging free software. I have merely pointed out, perhaps gleefully, that its tortured constructions have now resulted in a sort of NOP status if/when the case under discussion here becomes widely referenced. The GPL is what the GPL is and nothing that I do can directly affect that.

I have taken pains to show where free software has a value and would have an even greater value if it were ever free of the GPL as asserted in the harassing tactics of the SFLC and FSF. I personally think that the GPL is a diversion of focus on what really might help the world in general and, as such, should be done away with along with the cultism evoked by Stallman which similarly diverts attention from real issues.

Tell me, curious friend, do you actually do anything positive and
constructive in your free time?  Something which makes the world a better

What if I did? Or what if I did not? Does that affect the intrinsic truth of the issues raised here? Would you be happier with the idea if it were presented by Stallman himself? Other credentialed open source leaders seem to have taken a dim view of the FSF and the GPL shenanigans, too, for example Linus himself or Eric Raymond.

reply via email to

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