Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >> > [...] >> >> Why doesn't Daniel attack OpenBSD? Or Dragonfly BSD? Or FreeBSD? >> > >> > He doesn't attack the BSD because the BSD license terms don't contain >> > any price-fixing provisions. >> >> But they still ruin his business prospects, > > And how do you know? Hint: he didn't sue Apple (BSD based Mac OS X > which is marketed to consumers at a positive price). Anyway, it's > not the probability of being ruined that is relevant to the > Wallace's case. Competition is about grabbing as much of the market > as possible and ruining (employing lawful means) competitors in the > process. Wallace appears to believe that the BSD is lawful and that > the GPL is unlawful. And you just keep misinterpreting his case and > persistently fail to address his arguments.
I am in good company, as the court does just the same. The problem is that Wallace's "case" needs different laws in order to actually be a case. So you _have_ to "misinterpret" his case if you try matching it to the _actual_ laws. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
