http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/
-
Thursday
Does Open Source Software Violate Antitrust Laws?
Wallace v. International Bus. Mach., 06-2454 (7th Cir., Nov. 9, 2006)
This Seventh Circuit decision addresses an interesting issue at the
intersection of intellectual property and antitr
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander "Plonker" Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > To surrender something you must first have it. So when was it that they
>> > had the right to distribute the derivative work for a charge? Before or
>> > after they accepted the GPL?
[...]
>One just c
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Richard writes:
> > To surrender something you must first have it. So when was it that they
> > had the right to distribute the derivative work for a charge? Before or
> > after they accepted the GPL?
One just can't charge *for* a derivative work before it is created
(f
Richard writes:
> To surrender something you must first have it. So when was it that they
> had the right to distribute the derivative work for a charge? Before or
> after they accepted the GPL?
After accepting the GPL they have the right to charge whatever the market
will bear for copies of the
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> From groklaw:
>
>
> Eben is going to look at the agreement (confidentially)
>
> Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 09 2006 @ 09:38 PM EST
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/11/09/2356241.shtml
> http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2168151/nove
>From groklaw:
Eben is going to look at the agreement (confidentially)
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 09 2006 @ 09:38 PM EST
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/11/09/2356241.shtml
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2168151/novells-opens-microsoft
If I were Eben I would not
The Paralegal (PJ of "When you want to know more but don't know where
to look" ) at www.groklaw.net:
It's hard for corporate entities to really grasp the GPL. It's a
learning process, and I'm sure Novell is learning from this experience.
What happens next is hard to say, but what I haven
LOL.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2168151/novells-opens-microsoft
---
Novell has partnered with the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) to
ensure that its partnership with Microsoft does not violate any terms of
the General Public Licence.
"The SFLC has been offered cooperation by Novel
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.:
http://www.lamlaw.com/
--
November 10, 2006 - Friday
7:34 AM PST - Open Source holds up in court (InfoWorld)
While this decision is welcome, it may not mean what the headline
suggests.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed
the case,
Matt Asay (Director, Linux Business Office, Novell):
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2006/11/the_gpl_doesnt.html
---
Besides a weak understanding of the law, Wallace is unfortunately mired
in the proprietary past. His economic reasoning actually resembles that
of the propr
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>An author of a derivative work who accepts the GPL has copyright in a
>derivative work but is required to surrender a right to charge more than
>zero for derivative work.
To surrender something you must first have it
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> No, it's a "no". You don't have to surrender any rights, because you
> >> didn't have them in the first place. It just doesn't give you the
> >> right you seem to want.
>
> >Copyri
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, it's a "no". You don't have to surrender any rights, because you
>> didn't have them in the first place. It just doesn't give you the
>> right you seem to want.
>Copyright law gives it, stupid. "Copyright law
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >Copyleft
> >> >requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for derivative
> >> >works.
>
> >> No, it *gives* you the right to distribute derivative works subject to
> >> cer
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Copyleft
>> >requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for derivative
>> >works.
>> No, it *gives* you the right to distribute derivative works subject to
>> certain conditions, which is a right that you
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Go try to negotiate different license terms for the EULA'd stuff in
> Windows. Or Java from Sun
I've addressed Windows already. As for Java...
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=34835
"After acknowledging that "we've had a bit of a chill in our
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Copyleft
> >requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for derivative
> >works.
>
> No, it *gives* you the right to distribute derivative works subject to
> certain conditions
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Last time I looked, the case _did_ involve copyright.
>
> "For the past ten years a software copyright and patent license has
> been circulated by way of the Internet.
So you agree.
>> > Copyleft requires all licens
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Last time I looked, the case _did_ involve copyright.
"For the past ten years a software copyright and patent license has
been circulated by way of the Internet.1 Titled the GNU General Public
License (GPL) (Ex A (GPL)) it has been utilized to publicly regulate
pool
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Copyleft
>requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for derivative
>works.
No, it *gives* you the right to distribute derivative works subject to
certain conditions, which is a right that you wouldn't other
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > LOL.
>> >
>> > backinfullforce commented (quoting smarty EASTERBROOK):
>> >
>> > --
>> > "Copyright law gives authors *a right* to charge more, so that they can
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > LOL.
> >
> > backinfullforce commented (quoting smarty EASTERBROOK):
> >
> > --
> > "Copyright law gives authors *a right* to charge more, so that they can
> > recover their fixed costs ( and thus promote innovatio
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> LOL.
>
> backinfullforce commented (quoting smarty EASTERBROOK):
>
> --
> "Copyright law gives authors *a right* to charge more, so that they can
> recover their fixed costs ( and thus promote innovation ), but they do
> *not require* authors
LOL.
backinfullforce commented (quoting smarty EASTERBROOK):
--
"Copyright law gives authors *a right* to charge more, so that they can
recover their fixed costs ( and thus promote innovation ), but they do
*not require* authors to charge more. You hear that, Williams? You are
not required
LOL.
http://lwn.net/Articles/208617/
(GPL survives antitrust challenge - again)
Subscriber bojan:
--
Ruling is here:
http://www.internetcases.com/library/cases/2006-11-09_wal...
If I didn't know better, I'd say this was written by someone from FSF :-)
--
Subscriber louie:
--
If i
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [... GPL _software_ copies ...]
>
>> But it is a hurdle that one can't blame Easterbrook for.
>
> Wallace's claim has absolutely nothing to do with software COPIES
> (material objects), retard.
Who said it was?
--
Davi
David Kastrup wrote:
[... GPL _software_ copies ...]
> But it is a hurdle that one can't blame Easterbrook for.
Wallace's claim has absolutely nothing to do with software COPIES
(material objects), retard. And Easterbrook got it. As for blaming
Easterbrook... first off, it wasn't an appeal
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/73994/index.html
> (Novell Releases Mono 1.2 With Enhanced Support for .NET on Linux)
>
> EASTERBROOK to http://www.catb.org/esr :-) "People willingly pay for
> quality software even when they can get free (but
A pity it spreads a lie... due to the common confusion between
proprietary and commercial.
Qui, 2006-11-09 às 19:03 +0100, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and
> revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any
> creator of a revised or impro
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/73994/index.html
(Novell Releases Mono 1.2 With Enhanced Support for .NET on Linux)
EASTERBROOK to http://www.catb.org/esr :-) "People willingly pay for
quality software even when they can get free (but imperfect)
substitutes. Open Office is a free, open-sour
30 matches
Mail list logo
