Comments on: the GPL is not a monopoly http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/ Ramblings on law school in New York, free software, and the spaces in between. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:45:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: drew Roberts http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-4966 drew Roberts Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:44:58 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-4966 One thing I don't see discussed here is the difference between charging for the work and charging for the act or transferring the work. It might be worthwhile to discuss this some. all the best, drew One thing I don’t see discussed here is the difference between charging for the work and charging for the act or transferring the work.

It might be worthwhile to discuss this some.

all the best,

drew

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-4068 Crosbie Fitch Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:57:17 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-4068 In case anyone's interested, I continued this discussion on William Patry' Copyright Blog: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/11/gnu-gnu.html In case anyone’s interested, I continued this discussion on William Patry’ Copyright Blog:

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/11/gnu-gnu.html

]]> By: Pablo Rodríguez http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3847 Pablo Rodríguez Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:47:56 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3847 Sorry for the different typos. With no preview option before submit, I'm afraid that this is what you get. Sorry for the different typos. With no preview option before submit, I’m afraid that this is what you get.

]]> By: Pablo Rodríguez http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3846 Pablo Rodríguez Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:46:14 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3846 Luis, thanks for the reference, but I'm afraid that the pdf file was only temporarily available (see their <a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/faqs.htm#templinks" rel="nofollow">linking policy</a>. Providing more information on the case would be also useful. I guess the case is <em>Wallace vs IBM</em> (that seems to be <a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It would be useful to update the link with the new address. I think it is a permanent url, although I'm not sure about it. Thanks for your wrok, Pablo. Luis, thanks for the reference, but I’m afraid that the pdf file was only temporarily available (see their linking policy.

Providing more information on the case would be also useful. I guess the case is Wallace vs IBM (that seems to be here.

It would be useful to update the link with the new address. I think it is a permanent url, although I’m not sure about it.

Thanks for your wrok, Pablo.

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3845 Crosbie Fitch Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:05:48 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3845 Here are three egregious excerpts: "the license prohibits charging for the derivative work" "neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge" "any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL" How can you maintain confidence in a judgement (even though you like it) if the judge is not fully informed concerning the difference between an assurance of liberty and a restraint of trade? There is probably some special term (possibly <em>lexa sinusest</em>) that applies to a case where some of the facts are in error, yet because all the sideline judges have an opinion that the judgement would be the same even if the errors were rectified, they let it stand because they don't want to embarass to the old bluffer. Luis, you've really got to stop trying to protect people from embarrasing themselves. :) Here are three egregious excerpts:

“the license prohibits charging for the derivative work”

“neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge”

“any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL”

How can you maintain confidence in a judgement (even though you like it) if the judge is not fully informed concerning the difference between an assurance of liberty and a restraint of trade?

There is probably some special term (possibly lexa sinusest) that applies to a case where some of the facts are in error, yet because all the sideline judges have an opinion that the judgement would be the same even if the errors were rectified, they let it stand because they don’t want to embarass to the old bluffer.

Luis, you’ve really got to stop trying to protect people from embarrasing themselves. :)

]]> By: Luis http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3830 Luis Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:45:30 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3830 I think I'd read a lot more of the brother if he weren't so openly sexist (or at least, didn't try to appeal to his readers that way). Cheerleaders don't run on the field during the football game, and they shouldn't show up in the middle of ESPN columns either. If I want naked or nearly naked women on the internet, I know how to find them. I think I’d read a lot more of the brother if he weren’t so openly sexist (or at least, didn’t try to appeal to his readers that way). Cheerleaders don’t run on the field during the football game, and they shouldn’t show up in the middle of ESPN columns either. If I want naked or nearly naked women on the internet, I know how to find them.

]]> By: Seth Bayens http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3829 Seth Bayens Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:34:19 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3829 Interesting side note - Judge Easterbrook's brother is the author of Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.COM - by far one of the best columns on the NFL on the internet. He actually talks about waaaay more than football, so I'd recommend it to anyone. http://search.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=gregg%20easterbrook&source=nav Interesting side note - Judge Easterbrook’s brother is the author of Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.COM - by far one of the best columns on the NFL on the internet. He actually talks about waaaay more than football, so I’d recommend it to anyone. http://search.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=gregg%20easterbrook&source=nav

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3827 Crosbie Fitch Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:59:02 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3827 Firstly, I've yet to achieve that remarkable feat of embarassing myself (even in private). Secondly, sticking my foot in my mouth demonstrates my humanity - which is a good thing in my book. Thirdly, I always assume bloggers such as yourself are keen for people to express their own opinions rather than say what they think the blogger wants to hear. Fourthly, I hope you've not mistaken anything I've written as a claim that I may demand you publish anything I post to your comment submission form. Perhaps, I've made a lighthearted jibe at your editorial policy, however. ;-) Fifthly, I can see you have an editorial policy and you're not scared to use it. Sixthly, I'm delighted to have this conversation with you and the attention of your immediate consideration concerning whether my words merit publication. Firstly, I’ve yet to achieve that remarkable feat of embarassing myself (even in private).

Secondly, sticking my foot in my mouth demonstrates my humanity - which is a good thing in my book.

Thirdly, I always assume bloggers such as yourself are keen for people to express their own opinions rather than say what they think the blogger wants to hear.

Fourthly, I hope you’ve not mistaken anything I’ve written as a claim that I may demand you publish anything I post to your comment submission form. Perhaps, I’ve made a lighthearted jibe at your editorial policy, however. ;-)

Fifthly, I can see you have an editorial policy and you’re not scared to use it.

Sixthly, I’m delighted to have this conversation with you and the attention of your immediate consideration concerning whether my words merit publication.

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3826 Crosbie Fitch Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:38:39 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3826 <i>All of Crosbie's posts deleted until he can explain the difference between freedom of public political speech and privately hosted apolitical speech. --Ed., who is mostly doing Crosbie a favor by preventing him from embarassing himself in public.</i> <!--Right. I can tell you understand a lot about freedom of speech.--> All of Crosbie’s posts deleted until he can explain the difference between freedom of public political speech and privately hosted apolitical speech. –Ed., who is mostly doing Crosbie a favor by preventing him from embarassing himself in public.

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3825 Crosbie Fitch Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:13:07 +0000 http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/11/09/the-gpl-is-not-a-monopoly/#comment-3825 <em>The rest of Crosbie's comments get deleted until he, you know, 'reads the thing'. --Ed. </em> <!--Whether GPL software is necessarily free of charge or not, I'd say is pretty relevant to antitrust pricing. But, hey, the law is an ass anyway. Otherwise we wouldn't need the fricking GPL to undo its mistakes in the first place.--> The rest of Crosbie’s comments get deleted until he, you know, ‘reads the thing’. –Ed.

]]>