"Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > And only the GPL. The GPL is the only choice to obtain rights to property > locked in the GPL pool (don't confuse it with non-bazaar models a la MySQL > and Trolltech where no GPL-only forks exist). The GPL doesn't allow > sublicensing under different "commercial" terms along the lines of the > CPL/EPL/BSD/etc.
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. And I suppose you 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. But you know....the GPL is used voluntarily, not just by IBM, Redhat and Novell, but by many other companies and individuals. No one forces them to license their code under it, they might just as well license it under the CPL/EPL/BSD, etc. But they don't, and Wallace will have a hard time suing everyone that ever used the GPL. Which brings us back to "non-parties" and such: (IBM Brief, Footnote 7)"The existence of so many distributors of GPL software other than the three defendants named here also raises serious questions whether the injunction plaintiff seeks could be effective in preventing the use of the Linux operating system, as those NOT A PARTY to this case would clearly not be bound by any such injunction." (emphasis added) So any injunction against IBM et.al would not apply to, say Debian, Ubuntu, etc. Wallace would have to sue all of them as well. Oh, and I "get it", I undertand what Wallace wants, or at least what he says he wants. He wants nasty old IBM, Redhat, and Novell to stop releasing software under the GPL because it "prevents Plaintiff Daniel Wallace from marketing his own computer operating system as a competitor". The problem with that argument, as has been pointed out to Wallace, by a real live judge is that "as alleged, the GPL in no way forecloses other operating systems from entering the market. Instead, it merely acts as a means by which certain software may be copied, modified and redistributed without violating the software's copyright protection. As such, the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers." (Wallace v. FSF, Entry Granting Reasserted Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34) Page 6). And after reading the CPL/EPL, the main difference I see is the commerical clause, so I can only guess that Wallace really wants the same thing you want, to be able to plunder and pillage the work of others for your own profit. Is there really and truly no CPL/EPL/BSD software that can compare to that which is GPLed? Surely the GPL doesn't have a monopoly on talented programmers. And I'll save some time for both of us. You will no doubt wish to counter with something like: "The court understands Mr. Wallace's argument that the GPL may be preventing him from marketing his own operating system, and, for the purposes of the instant motion, accepts that allegation as true.", (Wallace v. FSF, Entry Granting Reasserted Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34) Page 6), you will no doubt "accidently" neglect to add "However, while this may be significant enough from Mr. Wallace's perspective, a plaintiff must prove not only an injury to him or herself, but to the market as well, which Mr. Wallace has failed to do." Now, Redhat/Novell's brief is quite compelling as well, wherein they assert that since Wallace lost (even after 4 amended complaints) basically the same case against FSF, his case against IBM et.al. is dead as well. I agree. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
