12 thoughts on “the GPL is not a monopoly”

  1. How can you stoop so low as to have ‘fundamental error’ and ‘otherwise sound’ in the same sentence when describing a legal judgement?

    This is like saying the Titanic has a gash rupturing 17 isolation compartments along the full length of its submerged hull, but is otherwise sound.

    This guy evidently believes that speaking is great when you get paid for it, and that having the liberty to drink the odd bottle of imported Belgian beer in his chambers is his human right.

  2. Because his fundamental error about the GPL is irrelevant to the soundness of the ruling?

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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. :)

  7. 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.

  8. 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,


Comments are closed.