David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > That's copyleft logic, not copyright. > > Believe what you will.
Hey dak, just FYI, I've suggested to Wallace to go for an en banc hearing and simply submit http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/10/gpl_wallace_appeal/ (GPL passes bizarro world anti-trust test) with http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2006/11/the_gpl_doesnt.html (by Matt Asay, Director, Linux Business Office, Novell) asking for confirmation from all the members of 7th appellate court whether they ALL live in a bizarro world together with prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook. (And if they will answer "yes" then ask the same question in a petition to the Supreme Court.) Thus far, Wallace replied "why intercede" pointing to the recent MS-Novell development suggesting the death of free software being crushed under the weight of thousands Microsoft patents in a competitive "growing, not shrinking" (according to Chief Judge) operating system market. If anyone sues Microsoft under Sherman section 2, Microsoft will simply point to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision and claim "competition is flourishing in the defined market". Will a district court judge defy an esteemed jurist of the calibre of Judge Easterbrook in the antitrust arena? You gotta hand it to Judge Easterbrook. He is a great judge of free and continuing competitive markets. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
