Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed

[David Kastrup]

"amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:

> "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
> 87k4yzgwfx.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:87k4yzgwfx.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:
>>
>>> "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Uh yes.  We were talking about _market_ value of GPL software
>>>> business.  Now you want to exclude everything for which one has to
>>>> pay.  How much more stupid can you get?
>>>>
>>> Well I find it difficult to achieve your level, of course, but I would
>>> claim that, absent Linux per se, Red Hat could be in the same business
>>> doing the same things and be focused on freeBSD Unix.
>>
>> Focus, please focus.  Now you are talking about a decrease of the GPL
>> market in a fantasy world of yours.
>>
>>> Or the GPL could be revoked and Red Hat would continue to be in the
>>> same business doing the same thing as before.
>>
>> Nobody was talking about the GPL market in fantasy worlds.
>>
>> Microsoft could be a company selling green cheese, but that makes no
>> statement about the dairy market in _this_ world.
>>
> Well, if that sort of nonsense is all you have left to mention, it is
> a good sign that you now understand the conventional meaning of market
> value and see that open source software is a very minor player on that
> stage and understand the insignificance of the GPL in terms of market
> power.

Well, it is easy to live using a vegetarian diet.  Does that mean that
meat production is insignificant in terms of market power?  The question
is not what the market power of the GPL were if everybody chose to stop
using and marketing GPLed products.  That's your fantasy world.  The
question was about the _current_ market situation.

> I think my work is finished here

I certainly doubt that you can get much more egg on your face here, yes.

> and I can move off to newer threads.

If you think that you'll look less stupid there...

-- 
David Kastrup