Re: Circumventing the GPL

[Rjack]

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> rjack <robjack@insightbb.com> writes:
> > I see you have [...]
>
> What I've done is I've applied Richard Feynman's simple rule about theories:
> if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
>
> You proposed a controversial, completely unproven idea of copyright law that
> would have certain consequences.  I pointed out that the observed
> consequences in the real world do not match the consequences that would be
> seen if your theory was right.

What is "controversial" or unproven about 17 USC sec. 301 of the 
Copyright Act?

Read for instance Jacobsen v. Katzer. Free software advocates have long 
been in total denial concerning *historically well established* 
principles concerning licensing such as the fact that a copyright 
license is a contract. The case law is replete with decisions that 
demonstrate the principles applied to copyright licensing. Crackpots 
like Eben Moglen are responsible for the denial of these facts. If you 
chant the mantra that "a license is not a contract" long enough, it 
takes on a truth of its own in many gullible folks minds.

Instead of productively using Google to find and read these case law 
decisions, Free Softies simply spend their ink issuing wishful denials.

> That makes your idea look wrong.
>
> > Who, pray tell, are these mysterious billion dollar companies and what would
> > their business model resemble?
>
> Microsoft is an obvious example.  Making problems for GPL'd software is a
> big priority for them.  This is clear from the millions they pumped into SCO
> and the press statements that Bill and his replacement have made about the
> GPL.

Microsoft *loves* the GPL. The GPL intimidates many small companies 
(witness the BusyBox cases) and keeps them from competing in the 
marketplace. Linux under a BSD license is Microsoft's worst nightmare.

Sincerely,
Rjack