Re: Wallace's reply brief

[Ferd Burfel]

"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message 
44D30173.E09D9753@web.de">news:44D30173.E09D9753@web.de...
>
> Ferd Burfel wrote:
> [...]
>> Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL:  It doesn't 
>> allow
>> people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no charge) and
>> turn around and make a commerical product out of it.
>
> Yep.

Well, at least you admit it.  I happen to believe that the GPL is better 
than CPL/EPL/BSD *because* it doesn't allow this.  It just seems fairer to 
me.  And apparently to a lot of other people, too, because they choose GPL 
over the others.  I'm not a programmer, so writing my own software is not an 
option.  I enjoy the wide range of plentiful GPL'd software that is 
available for free.  So while be both like getting something for nothing, 
I'm content to simply have it, while you're out to make money off of it.

>> think that if Wallace is somehow successful in his endeavor, the GPL will
>> somehow be magically nulled and voided, and those that wish will be free 
>> to
>> profit from the exGPL code.  As if the copyrights on that code are 
>> somehow
>> dissolved as well.
>
> Sort of.

Care to explain?  So you figure you can get around all that silly 
"copyright" stuff where the creator of something actually gets to say how 
it's used?  Good luck on that.  I can see the firestorm of lawsuits from 
owners of formerly-GPLd code.  And one of them would be IBM.  And were SCO 
to be successful against IBM, them as well.  And no, I don't believe voiding 
the license would void the copyright as well.  If you disagree, feel free to 
quote actual case law, so long as it's from a case that isn't pending.  IOW, 
none of Wallace's half-baked theories or obscure law professor's alternate 
view of reality.

>> and Wallace will have a hard time suing
>> everyone that ever used the GPL.
>
>He doesn't have to.

No, he doesn't.  But all a win in IBM et.al. would do for him would be to 
have an injunction against IBM et.al., "strangers may do as they please,". 
He may regret pointing that out.

To get at the GPL, he would have to win against FSF.  Unless he has a time 
machine, that door is closed.

> Drunken Tinder.

Where I'm from it's considered bad form, not to mention hazardous to one's 
freedom, to make such statements about judges.  But to each his own.

> There was a plenty of time to raise "estoppel" BEFORE the Final Judgment 
> was
> entered in the IBM et al. case (same as with respect to submission of 
> Final
> Judgment from Tinder -- which they did after their "last" brief).
>
> Because they did not want to mention the agreement, the sneaky bastards 
> did
> not even mention "estoppel" to the district court in IBM et al. concerning
> the FSF case.
>
> Instead they waited until time ran out to appeal the FSF case and then 
> raised
> "estoppel" on appeal for the first time. (Where obviously the Appeals 
> Court
> was unaware of the agreement.)

Sneaky bastards indeed.  But that's what happens when a pretend attorney 
takes on real attorneys, who have had the benefit of law school.

Will Wallace be suing them now, as well?  Pesky law schools, giving people 
specialized knowledge, taking payment from them, making it impossible for 
Wallace to practice effective law.

> Got it now, Burfel?

Oh, I got it.  (And Tinder "gets" the GPL, much to Danny's dismay).

Wallace got screwed by those "sneaky bastards" because they are real lawyers 
who know real legal tactics, while he isn't.  It's like taking a pea-shooter 
to a howitzer fight.  He should have agreed not to appeal IBM et.al., 
instead of FSF.  If he really did that, it was a big mistake.

He could appeal the whole thing on grounds of inadequate counsel. (or that 
his opposition's counsel was too adequate).

BTW, since you seem to have so much insight/inside info on this.....does 
Wallace REALLY have an OS that he wants to market, or it just a bunch of hot 
air?  How much of his alleged OS is based on GPL code that he wants to 
license under CPL/EPL/BSD/<whatever>?

What you don't seem to "get", is that the fact that people disagree with 
Wallace, and yourself, is not an indication that they don't understand the 
arguments.  On the contrary, they do understand them, they just disagree 
with them.  I personally have my problems not with the GPL, but rather those 
behind it that wish to use it to wage war on proprietary software.  To me, 
the GPL is fairer to those that choose to use it than other licenses are, 
but some of it's proponents talk "choice" out of one side of their mouth, 
while shouting, "down with proprietary software" out of the other.  Danny 
might have been more successful if he had paid more attention to that kind 
of thing.