Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [...]

>> Chances are, that excerpt was written by a lawyer who knows a lot
>> about the law, and little to nothing about free software.  He's
>> obviously wrong in his assertions, since he appears not to understand
>> what the goals of free software actually are.  They certainly aren't
>> about "creating software that [somebody] can truly call his own".  He
>> appears to belong

> I'll try to explain it to you silly. Suppose you wrote a piece of
> software and it is judged to be truly yours and only yours (not
> infringing the rights of others).

Yes.  This is usually known as "proprietary software".

> Guess what: you've got all your "four freedoms" and can enjoy freedom.

Yes, but nobody else has.  The software isn't free.  As I've just said,
it's usually categorised as "proprietary software".

> On the other side of the spectrum is the same piece of software but
> infringing based on idiotic expansive GNUish theory of derivative
> works... now say goodbye to your "four freedoms."

Say what?  That doesn't even parse.

> Got it now, Alan?

Yes indeed.  But you clearly haven't.

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).