Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> I don't see anything like "RedHat IP -- $0" listed on their page.  In
>
> You can't find the GPL (IP -- $0) and all sort of GPL'd stuff on their 
> page? Very interesting.
>
>> fact, they retain their IP and don't give their copyright away.  They
>
> Outright transfers of title in IP is not what Wallace's case is
> about.  Wallace case is about GPL licensing agreement (pooling the
> copyright and patent rights in derivative and collective works under
> the GPL), not some copyright assignment agreements (something a la
> copyright assignment forms issued by the FSF for their official
> branch of the GNU project in which the title in IP belongs to the
> FSF and only the FSF).

Congratulations, you get it.  RedHat is not selling its IP for $0.  It
is offering _one_ way of obtaining a licensed copy for $0 (if you
consider downloading expenses non-existent).  It is also offering
other ways for other prices.  So they are not selling their IP, and
there is no fixed price for licensed copies of it, either.

>> provide, however, downloads for $0, so they price a particular form
>> of _copies_ at no charge.
>
> And once again you attempt to misinterpret Wallace's case.

Well, he _has_ no case, remember?  That's what the court finally rules
after giving him lots of leeway to actually state a case.  Thus every
interpretation of his "case" has to be a misinterpretation.

> Wallace case is not about copies (material objects). It's about
> licensing of exclusive rights established by copyright and patent
> laws.

But licenses are bound to particular physical copies.  This is the
reason why "Wallace case" is not a case at all.  "IP" implies the
right to pick the license for your work.  And RedHat does not give
that right away.  As a consequence, the only party that has standing
to sue for breach of RedHat's copyright is RedHat itself.

>> They also price other copy forms at larger charges.
>
> RedHat's media kits are optional and gratis.
>  
>>          It is like a free art catalogue: you are free to cut and
>> paste and frame stuff from the catalogue for your home, but they
>> make their money with people buying the pieces advertised in that
>> manner.
>
> RedHat doesn't sell GPL'd IP to public. GPL'd IP (apart from
> outright transfer of title) is price-fixed at "no charge" and is
> available gratis (pursuant to the GPL).

Nonsense.  They retain their copyright and don't sell it.  Licensing
is concerned with physical copies.  This difference is crucial for
making a case, and conflating it like you and Wallace is not going to
fly in court.

>> > Ancillary service that they supply is priced far above costs of
>> > providing the service (above predatory levels) and it is used to
>> > recoup loses from GPL conspiracy and turn a profit. Got it now?
>> 
>> It is called advertising.
>
> You're hallucinating. 

Good to hear.  You have refrained from insults for so long that I had
almost been afraid you did not realize you were with the back to the
wall with your "legal" arguments.  Thanks for setting the record
straight again.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum