gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 09:57:10 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > And once again you conflate the market under attack by the copyleft
> > conspiracy with its ancillary markets.
> 
> Nothing but the "ancillary market" is relevant here. 

Only to you and other GNUtians. Wallace's case is not about ancillary 
markets.
 
>                                                      We are talking
> about the business of selling operating systems, not of selling labor.

Wallace is talking about selling Intellectual Property.

> Wallace is free to sell his labor to whatever operating system vendor
> wants to buy it. 

Sure he is free. But he wants to become a vendor of his SciBSD 
operating system and use some IP value based business model. 
 
>                  But that's not what he wants.  He purports to want
> to sell operating system copies himself, and exactly that is what you
> call "ancillary market".

You again attempt to conflate. Think of it this way: Red Hat doesn't 
sell operating system copies. Go try to buy a used one (archaic 
pre-"subscription model" copies don't count).

> 
> > Is it really that hard to grasp that those ancillary markets will
> > function in exactly the same way (if not better) when copyleft is
> > outlawed and Linux becomes non- copyleft free software?
> 
> You can't outlaw copyleft since it is simply a normal use of a
> creator's copyright. 

It's far from normal.
 
>                      And those ancillary markets work better with
> copyleft: exactly that is the problem for Wallace: he can't sell his
> personal reinvention of the wheel because the market already has the
> means to supply better ones on a sustainable basis.

Nonsense. Wallace case is not about ancillary markets to begin with,
and his reuse of BSD and alike licensed code in SciBSD is hardly 
reinvention.

regards,
alexander.


reply via email to

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