Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

[ZnU]

In article <ws-dnffO4pKHQ8DRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 RJack <user@example.net> wrote:

> On 8/7/2010 4:08 PM, ZnU wrote:
> > In article<4C5DAFA2.317C0E8D@web.de>, Alexander
> > Terekhov<terekhov@web.de>  wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote: [...]
> >>> nothing particularly strong to favor the opposite position.
> >>> You've demonstrated that it's possible to fail to create a
> >>> condition, but have advanced no compelling argument that the GPL,
> >>> specifically, fails to do so.
> >>
> >> Q) I want to create a full blown derivative work (a copy of which I
> >> may want to distribute later) or a copy verbatim (which I may want
> >> to distribute later) of the GPL'd work... what are the conditions
> >> in order to gain the rights to do that?
> >>
> >> A) None. The GPL has no conditions precedent.
> >>
> >> Please prove me wrong.
> >
> > I'm not interested in whatever games you want to play with shifting
> > the burden of proof. In Jacobsen v. Katzer, the Artistic License was
> > found to establish valid conditions, such that ignoring them while
> > engaging in actions otherwise not permitted by copyright law was
> > found to be copyright violation. You either need to explain a)
> > specifically why the Artistic License created valid conditions but
> > the GPL did not or b) why I should believe your opinion over that of
> > a federal court.
> >
> > Posting a bunch of general information about conditions vs.
> > covenants, which is what you keep doing, is not especially
> > interesting when there is a ruling that appears to have addressed the
> > issue at hand far more directly.
> >
> 
> The Artistic License is not the GPL License. Since you wish to eschew
> researching and reasoning with "general information" perhaps you should
> explain how you justify generalizing about the Artistic License in
> relation to the GPL.
> 
> You are indeed correct that "you are not interested in carrying any
> burden of proof". You claim the Artistic License generalizes to the GPL
> but you can't prove it. It is you who are playing games by hypothesizing
> and then refusing to carry your burden of proof.

You're simply playing games. There is a _huge_ difference between 
reasoning from general principles in the presence of case law that 
apparently _disagrees_ with your conclusions, and using that same case 
law to predict the outcome of an _extremely similar_ case. If you 
believe there is some key difference between the Artistic License and 
GPL that distinguishes these cases, name it.

Note that the appeals court, in its ruling, talks in fairly general 
terms about "public licenses" and explicitly cites "GNU/Linux" -- 
complete with "GNU" -- as an example of software released under such a 
license. It explicitly raises the issue of whether releasing software 
under such public licenses preserves the right of authors to seek 
copyright remedies and lays out the case that it does.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes