Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- ACT: Perens Invokes the “Nuh Uh!” Defense, Calls Us Names

[Richard Tobin]

In article <461CABF8.6FFDA205@web.de>,
Alexander Terekhov  <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

>GPLv3 may be interpreted as FSF tortiously interfering with a legal 
>contract between two parties concerning intellectual property issues 
>between them.  Mr. Perens cites to the case of Daniel Wallace which 
>was based on a predatory pricing theory under another version of the 
>GPL and not a group boycott theory as I was suggesting in respect of 
>the GPLv3.

So what's the theory?  That you can be sued for urging a "group
boycott"?  Welcome to the wacky world of American law.  How *dare*
you oppose the large corporations!

-- Richard

-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.