Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[...]
> GPLv3 will lead them to regrets.
LOL.
< Forward Quoted >
rjack wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=156
> >
> > ------
> > Here We Go Again: Microsoft Inks Deal with Xandros
> >
> > Posted by Lora Bentley on June 4, 2007 at 4:32 pm
>
> > Why would any company deliberately defy license terms? Because it can.
>
> Ms. Bentley obviously loves her *own* answer to her rhetorical question.
>
> Here's the real answer:
>
> The patent provisions in the GPL license are a delusional fantasy of
> Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen.
>
> This from the esteemed Columbia Professor of Law:
>
> "Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within
> the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but
> because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license
> permits."
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
>
> This from the Supreme Court of the United States:
>
> "No formal granting of a license is necessary in order to give it
> effect. Any language used by the owner of the patent or any conduct on
> his part exhibited to another, from which that other may properly infer
> that the owner consents to his use of the patent in making or using it,
> or selling it, upon which the other acts, constitutes a license, and a
> defense to an action for a tort. Whether this constitutes a gratuitous
> license, or one for a reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend
> upon the circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter
> in respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not
> an unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."; DE FOREST RADIO TEL.
> & TEL. CO. v. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 236 (1927).
>
> In the ensuing *eighty years* not *one* Federal Court decision has ever
> successfully overuled this contractual principle -- not even *one*.
> Yet as late as six months ago, Stallman and Moglen were still attempting
> to incorporate a term into the GPL3 declaring that it was not a contract.
>
> Moglen has drafted absolutely moronic terms concerning patents into the
> text of the GPL -- *that* is why Microsoft ignores the GPL's terms.
>
> Moglen has never attempted a principled defense to justify the blatant
> legal bullshit he has inserted into the GPL concerning patents.
> He never will... Moglen utters some legal nonsense concerning patents
> and the GPL and the well oiled "free" and open source blogs who feed off
> this legal tripe instantly spring into action.
>
> Repeat FUD often enough and it assumes a halo-like aura of truth in the
> minds of the gullible.
>
> The socialist open source movement in the EU has beaten their breasts
> and whined about "interoperability" and Windows for years. Microsoft is
> now complying with their pleas for "interoperability" by offering mutual
> patent covenants. So why don't they just STFU and admit their goal is
> Stallman's dream of abolishment of IP?. An alternative would be to
> obtain their own patents. If just 1% of their whining time was spent on
> learning to apply for patents, they could disarm Microsoft. Remember
> Eolas? *That* scares the crap out of Microsoft.
>
> rjack
--
"I can change the rules."
Herr Prof Eben
http://www.linux.com/blob.pl?id=796772290d97058074d8c909e3dde1eb
|
|
