Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>
> I meant 
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/53225114939815b8

Which contains only a small fraction of what you pretended to quote.
Namely that the judge rejected some of the FSF's arguments according
to Hollaar.  Those arguments, however, pertained to _necessary_ aided
competition by free access.  So the judge rejected the notion that
_every_ free access to source code will aid competition regardless of
circumstances.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with "copyright misuse" and
"linking" and similar.

In short: because you ran out of arguments, you tried pulling out
something which bears no relation whatsoever to the current
discussion, and then you did not get your attribution right, and then
you "quoted" and attributed lots of additional stuff out of thin air
that _also_ has not been written in the referenced posting.

You are really making a royal fool out of yourself.  Not that this is
anything new, but there were times when you did so in a more coherent
way.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum