[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: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:41:22 -0400

"David Kastrup" <> wrote in message 87k4yzgwfx.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:87k4yzgwfx.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

"David Kastrup" <> wrote in message

Uh yes.  We were talking about _market_ value of GPL software
business.  Now you want to exclude everything for which one has to
pay.  How much more stupid can you get?

Well I find it difficult to achieve your level, of course, but I would
claim that, absent Linux per se, Red Hat could be in the same business
doing the same things and be focused on freeBSD Unix.

Focus, please focus.  Now you are talking about a decrease of the GPL
market in a fantasy world of yours.

Or the GPL could be revoked and Red Hat would continue to be in the
same business doing the same thing as before.

Nobody was talking about the GPL market in fantasy worlds.

Microsoft could be a company selling green cheese, but that makes no
statement about the dairy market in _this_ world.

Well, if that sort of nonsense is all you have left to mention, it is a good sign that you now understand the conventional meaning of market value and see that open source software is a very minor player on that stage and understand the insignificance of the GPL in terms of market power. I think my work is finished here and I can move off to newer threads.

reply via email to

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