Re: GNU licenses

[alexander . terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Of course it does.  I make a living from it.

Care to elaborate? Who pays you and for what exactly?

>
> > the licensing of rights to your work (and its derivatives) is fixed
> > at no charge (recall that Wallace says that price-fixing derivatives
> > below cost is unlawful, and that the 7th Circuit Court have yet to
> > review his claim "de novo").
>
> Wallace claims a lot of nonsense when the day is long.  Which is why
> his cases get thrown out of court for lack of stating a case after
> several attempts.

How many times do you want me to quote Judge Tinder, retard?

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace-case-FAQ-for-dummies-v1.9.txt

------
that Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which
Relief
can be Granted and that Plaintiff's Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth
a
Violation of the Rule of Reason (but, unfortunately, being in a
partially
drunk condition, he was fooled by the FSF to believe that Plaintiff Has
Not
Alleged Antitrust Injury). Judge Tinder ruled: "To establish a Section
1
claim under the rule of reason test, a plaintiff must prove that "(1)
that the defendants contracted, combined, or conspired among each
other;
(2) that the combination or conspiracy produced adverse,
anti-competitive
effects within relevant product and geographic markets; (3) that the
objects of and the conduct pursuant to that contract or conspiracy were

illegal; and (4) that the plaintiffs were injured as a proximate result

of that conspiracy." Tunis Bros. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 952 F.2d 715,
722
(3d Cir. 1991). In this case, it appears that Mr. Wallace has made the
necessary allegations of FSF's unlawful contract and conduct. In his
Third
Amended Complaint, he specifically alleges that FSF conspired with
others,
including International Business Machines Corporation, Red Hat Inc. and

Novell Inc., to control the price of available software within a
defined
market through the GPL. Primarily at issue in FSF's motion is whether
Mr.
Wallace has adequately alleged that the GPL had a resulting
anticompetitive
effect.

[... reduction in IP output under GPL price-dumping conspiracy ...]

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."
------

> Anyway, you may not charge extra for the act of licensing, but nobody
> forces you to make the source available to anybody but your paying
> customers.

Dak, dak, dak. ROFL. True retard you are. Take the FSF's GPL quiz.

Or just visit

http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1659203
(10 common misunderstandings about the GPL)

------
8. Distributors only need to offer source code to their customers

If distributors opt to provide an offer for source code, then under
section 3b, the offer must be good for three years, and must apply
to "any third party." No distinction is made between commercial
customers and anyone else who might be interested in the source
code.
------

See also the GPLv3d2 rationale/clarification, stupid.

regards, 
alexander.