Re: Sharing the GPL source code, with value addition by vendor specificto his hardware?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 10/12/2010 10:59 AM, RJack wrote:
> > On 10/12/2010 10:20 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >> The GPL is a straightforward copyright license. Each time a court
> >> has had an opportunity to read it, they regarded it as such.
> >
> > To which federal courts are you referring?
> 
> The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals:
> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3689055814945636124>

Uh silly Hyman...

>      the GPL ... is a cooperative agreement that facilitates
>      production of new derivative works

The BSD agreement facilitates production of new derivative works even
more.

Thanks to Daniel Wallace, the 7th Circuit of the United States now
operates under the following law:

1.) [FOSS contributors can't charge] "Thus the GPL propagates from 
user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, 
nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the 
software or allow any successor to charge. ... Linux and other 
open-source projects have been able to cover their fixed costs 
through donations of time"

and

2.) [FOSS is junk] "People willingly pay for quality software even
when they can get free (but imperfect) substitutes. Open Office is 
a free, open-source suite of word processor, spreadsheet and 
presentation software, but the proprietary Microsoft Office has 
many more users. Gimp is a free, open-source image editor, but the 
proprietary Adobe Photoshop enjoys the lion's share of the market."

and

3.) [FOSS is doomed] "The number of proprietary operating systems 
is growing, not shrinking, so competition in this market continues 
quite apart from the fact that the GPL ensures the future 
availability of Linux and other Unix offshoots."

EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 7th Circuit.

Ha! "The number of proprietary operating systems is growing..." 

Judge Easterbrook sure got that one right. By simply querying any 
software outlet for their vast selection of proprietary operating 
systems aside from Linux (to wit: Windows and OS X) we know 
competition is flourishing. No need to ever contemplate antitrust 
charges against Microsoft again! 

I wonder where Judge Easterbrook shops for his software... 

FOSS advocates danced in the street with the Wallace v. IBM et al 
ruling... utterly oblivious to the fact that it was the best 
antitrust news that Microsoft had heard in years. Thanks in part 
to Easterbrook's ruling, Microsoft can now threaten FOSS without 
worrying about the DOJ. 

Sleep easy Steve and Bill there IS a tooth fairy. :-) 

[end quoting Wallace] 

regards,
alexander.

"Plaintiff Erik Andersen is a work-from-home father who has gifted 
to the world software underlying a significant body of consumer
electronics." ROFL
                     -- SFLC crooks Ravicher, Williamson, Spiegel
                
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)