Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <user@example.net> wrote:

> Groklaw's Pamela Jones, the Sarah Palin of the Software World is at it
> again:

> "The court quotes from Microsoft Corp. v. Software Wholesale Club,
> Inc.: "the first-sale doctrine does not apply to an admittedly
> counterfeit unit". So, no, you can't buy a copy and use it to go into a
> counterfeiting business, in effect. Terekhov's theory has bitten the
> dust and then had to eat some. Just like Daniel Wallace's anti-GPL
> theory did. Whoever is relying on their legal theories might want to
> buy a vowel and try to figure this puzzle out."
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091114101637997

What is perhaps to be wondered is that she is quoting the quasi-legal
opinion of a German software engineer concerning an arcane point of USA
copyright law, as though he were some sort of expert.  This is bizarre.
Why on Earth is she giving Alex such exposure?  Does she know something
about him that we don't?

> Pammy never bothers to document her sources concerning her assertion
> that Terekhov's first sale theory involves "counterfeiting" ...

Of course not.  That would involve too much plain boring legal nonsense,
when it's a plain-on-its-face type of counterfeiting, a bit like
photocopying 10 Euro notes, not something requiring arcane legal
opinions.  If you read the paragraph again, slowly, you'll realise that
the word "couterfeit" is being use in a commonsense way.  Anyhow, the
judge seems to feel it's couterfeiting too, so there's not too much
doubt.

> .... and distributing legally owned copies of GPL software. This woman
> is either a congenital liar ....

Ah yes, Rjack, somebody who's views, even when backed up by a judge,
disagree with your own, is a "congenital liar".  Not somebody who sees
things differently, not somebody who might be mistaken.  Or not somebody
who might help you see where _you're_ mistaken.  No, a "congenital liar".

> .... or Alzheimer's toxic plaque is taking its toll. Even someone with
> her limited cognitive abilities ....

Well if her cognitive abilities are limited, where does that put yours?

> .... should understand that you have permission via the GPL license to
> download and make an unlimited number of verbatim copies.

She understands that very well, and also understands the conditions
attached to such copying.

> "... They'll say, but, but, but ... what if they hadn't used the
> master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you
> think Psystar used the master copy?".
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091114101637997

> But, but, but ...

> "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
> conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
> copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
> notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
> and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
> along with the Program."

Er, what's that got to do with anything?  Who's talking about source
code?  The topic was Groklaw's reporting of Psystar's court loss,
concerning its distribution of Apple's OS in violation of copyright.

> Sincerely,
> Rjack

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).