David Kastrup wrote: [...] > Last time I looked, he was not out for selling his copyright, so he is > _not_ intending to charge for his IP, but for _licensing_ his IP.
Uh. You're a real idiot. Copyright is a BUNDLE of rights. The outright transfers of ownership of ALL rights (copyright) is not an issue in Wallace case apart that ------ IBM et al. state [IBM Brief at 15, ¶1] The ownership interests contributors to software licensed under the GPL might have in their modifications are seriously limited, given that any distribution of those modifications must be done under the terms of the GPL. This statement constitutes a mea culpa with respect to the extension of intellectual property rights beyond those conferred by Congress [see IBM Brief at 15, ¶2]. The contractual extension of control to the copyrights of all third parties who accept the GPL offer is an egregious misuse of copyright that may rise to the level of an antitrust violation. ([W]e left open the question whether copyright misuse, unless it rises to the level of an antitrust violation. . .) (Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. Wiredata. Inc., 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003)). The GPL purports to extend its intellectual property control to all third parties software patents as well as copyrights. (Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. . . To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.) [Ex A (GPL) at 1]. ------ regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss