Say "Bye-Bye SCO!"

Joe Fish reverend.joe at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 12:04:54 CDT 2007


>
> The GPL does not forbid charging money for software; it only restricts
> additional charges  made for access to the source code.  So if I want to
> sell GPLed software for $20, a Federal Reserve Note bearing the visage of
> Andrew Jackson becomes a "certificate redeemable for GPLv3 software", and
> everyone who spends one is now bound by the GPL.


Another bad analogy -- money is not a "certificate redeemable for GPLv3
software" -- it is legal tender that can be used to purchase ANYTHING -- are
you saying that having money to purchase anything makes you as
closely-related to the "conveyance" of all purchased goods as MS is to the
redemption of Novell SLED coupons?  Bit of a stretch, if you ask me.


This is why I went for the gift certificate analogy in the first place.  A
> gift certificate is a promise made by its issuer to provide some goods
> and/or services to a third party, who could otherwise purchase same for
> cash. These vouchers, issued by Novell, grant permission to receive support
> services, including downloads of updates from Novell's servers, which would
> otherwise require payment to Novell.  It is Novell that makes the promise,
> and Novell that makes it good.  Microsoft does nothing to make itself liable
> for copyright infringement, either primarily or secondarily, by reselling
> these certificates, any more than I make myself liable for health code
> violations at a McDonald's by redistributing or reselling their gift
> certificates or $20 bills.
>
>
Another bad anology -- health code laws are about as different from
copyright laws in both their written form, and their interpretations in
court, as two things can be and both still be called "LAWS".  You're still
missing my point -- the trend in this country is to try to create "IP" law
(both written laws and case laws) that gives the creator of something
ULTIMATE, TOTAL, AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL UNTIL THE END OF TIME of the thing
they've created.  Can you really say the same seems to apply to laws that
govern health conditions at McDonald's?

Hate to sound like a broken record here, but you saying "Microsoft does
nothing to make itself liable for copyright infringement", doesn't make that
statement any more true than it was the last time you stated it.  All that
matters is the judge and jury's opinion of whether MS is liable (that, and
the price of the shoes worn by the lawyers for the respective parties ... ).





JOE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20070925/228afb1d/attachment.htm 


More information about the Kclug mailing list