Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> Rjack wrote:
> [...]
>> I don't understand all the bluster and noise concerning this erroneous
>> decision by the CAFC. The CAFC itself has ruled while sitting en banc

> Hyman Rosen is playing naive brainwashed GNUtian here.

> This thread reminded me of the following titbit:

> http://www.law.washington.edu/lct/swp/Law/derivative.html

> "To effectuate the goals of the free software movement, the drafters of
> the GPL urge a generally expansive definition of derivative work. The
> great irony is, of course, that such an expansive definition would have
> second order consequences that are exactly counter to the goals of the
> proponents of Free Software. A broad definition of derivative would give
> code authors ***less*** freedom to create software that they can truly
> call their own and do with as they please. And if naive analytic
> approaches such as "subclassing equals derivation" reign..."

> He he.

You're being imbecillic here, Alex.  I'm not even bothering to look at
the site you cite, since experience shows this to be generally a waste of
time.

Chances are, that excerpt was written by a lawyer who knows a lot about
the law, and little to nothing about free software.  He's obviously wrong
in his assertions, since he appears not to understand what the goals of
free software actually are.  They certainly aren't about "creating
software that [somebody] can truly call his own".  He appears to belong
to the class of people who believe the fact that free software isn't
public domain is a bug rather than a feature.

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).