Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Oh dear dak...
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> The GPL does not demand _anything_ as long as you are not using
>> >> _others'_ property licensed under the GPL.  And then _their_ property
>> >> rights chip in, and they are perfectly allowed to give you license
>> >
>> > Except that the GPL blatantly misstates the scope of property rights
>> > under copyright. It pretends that both 17 USC 109 and 117 are simply
>> > nonexistent (true in the GNU Republic). Then comes the issue of price
>> > fixing at predatory ("no charge") level of pooled IP in derivative
>> > and collective works.
>> 
>> You are babbling.  This sort of babbling constitutes so little in way
>> of a coherent argument that it has already been thrown out of court
>> (remember Wallace?) in spite of your gleeful appreciation of it.
>
> I'm in good company. http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/a3f76440df6b36c1
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803
>
> And as for Wallace (his other case is under appeal now), to quote 
> Hollaar:
>
> (http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803)
>
> ------
> There has been some mention in this newsgroup in the past about the
> antitrust suit in Indiana regarding the GPL (Daniel Wallace v. Free
> Software Foundation, Inc.).

[...]

Get your attributions right.  The above message by Hollaar contains
nothing from what you pretend to quote.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum