Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > Some are thieves, like GPL licensors, who for the political goal of
> > destroying capitalism, try to steal other peoples' rights with an
> > illegal licensing scheme.
>
> Aren't you the guy that quoted the Seventh Circuit as if it's a
> fact-finding court?

I accurately quoted the Seventh Circuit's decision. The decision was 
celebrated as a great victory for FOSS. Every FOSS supporter on the
planet simply loves to cite to Wallace v. IBM et. al. as a crown 
jewel of legal support for FOSS. Are you anti-FOSS?


> It's not surprising that you have a limited knowledge of how capitalism
> works. You think that money can be the only form of consideration.

Uh. . .   Where did I say that?
> The CAFC seemed much more perceptive than you do when it wrote comparing
> software written for money with software written for purposes other than
> just money:

>   The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the
>   open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes,
>   rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal
>   recognition.

You are very confused (or dishonest) about what I have claimed. The 
*method* that consideration is is asked -- not the *kind* of
consideration that is asked is the problem.

> Other readers here with a more open perspective than yours will enjoy
> reading this:
>
>   http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/070622-tk.html

Perhaps they would also enjoy Eben Moglen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgCKRN_Bzzs

sounds like a perfect cure for capitalism.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)