Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> 
>> Qua, 2006-06-21 Ã s 17:09 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
>> > Note also Wallace's own (in the other case currently under appeal):
>> >
>> > -----
>> > Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose
>> > because a lack of competition removes not just product choice but
>> > without competitive reward the incentive to improve product quality
>> > disappears.
>> > -----
>> >
>> > http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf
>> 
>> That's the same Wallace whose single case was dismissed for futility,
>> right?
>
> Wrong. See below. Wallace filed two cases. This case is currently under 
> appeal.
>
>> Also the same Wallace whose single case included a quote from the judge
>> saying the exact opposite of that, right?
>
> Exact opposite of what?
>
>> 
>> Or do you think the judge was drunk (as you so famously insulted the
>> juridic system so often)?
>
> Uhmm. Let's see. Judge Young dismissed because according to him, 
> Wallace "has not identified an anticompetitive effect". And yet his 
> colleague Judge Tinder had no problems with Wallace's identification 
> of anticompetitive effect ("By making certain software programs 
> available to users at no charge, the GPL may be discouraging 
> developers from creating new and better programs because they will 
> not receive compensation for their work, thereby reducing the number 
> of quality programs available to users. This may be considered 
> anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be inferred from what 
> Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, this 
> court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a claim for 
> violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule of reason 
> doctrine"). 
>
> So one of them must have been drunk (in the sense of having somewhat 
> distorted view of reality). No?

No.  It's been explained to you a few times, but you might have been
drunk.  Judge Tinder tried reading a sensible interpretation into
Wallace's ramblings (if you don't have a lawyer representing you,
turning your gibberish into something comprehensible is largely the
duty of the judge) and constructed something which was most likely to
be the _legal_ essence of Wallace's complaint.  The result described
in more appropriate terms what Wallace was supposed to be complaining
about _if_ one did not want to assume that he was babbling nonsense in
the first place.  This refined wording of Wallace's alleged complaint
was then matched to the respective laws and it was found that even
when a judge tried making the best case from the mess Wallace
presented, the results simply were not sufficient for making enough of
a complaint that pursuing the case would have made any sense.

That is pretty unexciting when the court is responsible for making
Wallace's case.  The court tried to make his case as good as a lawyer
would have made it, sort of "if there is any angle to the case, it
must have been this".  Then it took a look at the results, and guess
what: they still did not meet the requirements for proceeding, even
when interpreted in the most favorable way.

That's all.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum