Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.0

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

You're a troll.

Sex, 2006-06-30 às 16:27 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> (This is regular posting.)
> 
> Q: What the fuck ... !?
> 
> A: The context is property. Intangible intellectual property (rights
>    granted under IP license). Property in short.

The context is wild fantasies about a non-existant OS that pretends it
can't get market share due to a copyright license, while other operating
systems seem quite happy to get market share.

Ubuntu GNU/Linux quickly became the most popular GNU/Linux distribution,
for instance, specially if you conside how much of a newcomer it is.

> Q: What price restrictions?
> 
> A: Property price restrictions.

There is no property price restriction. Wallace is free to write his own
tools and operating system charging however much he wants.

Wallace is also free to create a completely GPL'ed operating system and
charge hundreds of millions of dollars for making a copy of it.

What Wallace can't, is take software written by others and think that it
is property, much less his own.

> Q: What 'price'? Define 'price'.
> A: Cost to obtain EXISTING property on buyer's side. Price is fixed 
>    at zero in the case of property locked in the GPL pool (e.g. Guh-
>    NÜ-slash-Linux, the GPL part of it).

Nopes. That's not property. The CD is property.

> Q: A GPL coder is not compensated?
> A: That plus administration overhead, etc. Cost required to create 
>    NEW property (GPL derivative works, additions to GPL collective 
>    works) on seller's side. The GPL fixes the price below cost. 
>    Wallace is claiming antitrust injury from predatory pricing 
>    (pricing below cost) and says that the whole scheme is in 
>    violation of Sherman Act 1.

False again. Many peopler write free software without any monetary
compensation. Most, actually, do so.

Rui

signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente