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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Why doesn't Daniel attack OpenBSD? Or Dragonfly BSD? Or FreeBSD?
>> >
>> > He doesn't attack the BSD because the BSD license terms don't contain
>> > any price-fixing provisions.
>> 
>> But they still ruin his business prospects, 
>
> And how do you know? Hint: he didn't sue Apple (BSD based Mac OS X
> which is marketed to consumers at a positive price). Anyway, it's
> not the probability of being ruined that is relevant to the
> Wallace's case. Competition is about grabbing as much of the market
> as possible and ruining (employing lawful means) competitors in the
> process. Wallace appears to believe that the BSD is lawful and that
> the GPL is unlawful. And you just keep misinterpreting his case and
> persistently fail to address his arguments.

I am in good company, as the court does just the same.  The problem is
that Wallace's "case" needs different laws in order to actually be a
case.  So you _have_ to "misinterpret" his case if you try matching it
to the _actual_ laws.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum