David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > And once again you conflate the market under attack by the copyleft > > conspiracy with its ancillary markets. > > Nothing but the "ancillary market" is relevant here.
Only to you and other GNUtians. Wallace's case is not about ancillary markets. > We are talking > about the business of selling operating systems, not of selling labor. Wallace is talking about selling Intellectual Property. > Wallace is free to sell his labor to whatever operating system vendor > wants to buy it. Sure he is free. But he wants to become a vendor of his SciBSD operating system and use some IP value based business model. > But that's not what he wants. He purports to want > to sell operating system copies himself, and exactly that is what you > call "ancillary market". You again attempt to conflate. Think of it this way: Red Hat doesn't sell operating system copies. Go try to buy a used one (archaic pre-"subscription model" copies don't count). > > > Is it really that hard to grasp that those ancillary markets will > > function in exactly the same way (if not better) when copyleft is > > outlawed and Linux becomes non- copyleft free software? > > You can't outlaw copyleft since it is simply a normal use of a > creator's copyright. It's far from normal. > And those ancillary markets work better with > copyleft: exactly that is the problem for Wallace: he can't sell his > personal reinvention of the wheel because the market already has the > means to supply better ones on a sustainable basis. Nonsense. Wallace case is not about ancillary markets to begin with, and his reuse of BSD and alike licensed code in SciBSD is hardly reinvention. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
