decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Monday, May 02 2005 @ 04:49 PM EDT

I think the Register needs to do an expose of journalists and their errors and poor fact-checking when writing about legal news. Of course, they should start with themselves, and then I propose they take a look at The Collected Works of Maureen O'Gara.

There is a new specimen today ( http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/80782.htm ), in which she announces an Indiana lawsuit, brought pro se by Daniel Wallace against the FSF. He would like the GPL outlawed for price fixing or something like that. Ms. O'Gara styles him a "Groklaw gadfly", but as usual, she is wrong.

I assure you, Groklaw claims no proprietary rights on this Internet gadfly, who can be found all over expounding his personal theories about the GPL, and whose anti-GPL crackpot theories, as they've been called by some, have been repeatedly debunked, by attorneys and others knowledgeable about the GPL. And everybody on the dark side attacks Groklaw these days, including Ms. O'Gara, not just Daniel Wallace. I'm starting to figure out it's coordinated, not random. They seem to just pass the baton around, taking turns like Nazi interrogators in World War II beating prisoners, so none of them ever got tired but the victim never got a moment's relief, not that it helped them win the war. [Note it's a simile, a limited simile, to a technique of a group attacking a single individual by turns, not comparing anyone to Nazis, just to a technique they were famous for.]

Ms. O'Gara spouts a number of inaccurate explanations about the GPL, pretends "Open Source leaders" think the GPL can't stand up in court (I am guessing she means Larry Rosen is the leader, but as usual she doesn't say), garbles what happened in the MySQL case, where the GPL did stand up in court, despite what she thinks, and mischaracterizes attorney Rosen's writing about the GPL, once again (you can read it here, if you must: http://linuxbusinessweek.sys-con.com/read/48732_f.htm&e=10053 ). He already corrected her once. She is, I gather, not concerned with what he says he means, as she continues, after his first correction, to mischaracterize his writing. I wonder. If she keeps that up, at some point, is it actionable?

Here's Larry's comment on her latest piece of work:

Oy vey!

Maureen O'Gara continues to misquote my comments about the GPL in order to fuel her personal vendetta about that license. I have never disputed the GPL's legitimacy or its enforceability as a copyright license.

Many individuals and companies have proposed other licenses they prefer to the GPL for a variety of reasons that I summarize in my book. But to suggest that this means the GPL is invalid, or to propose, as "Groklaw gadfly" Daniel Wallace now apparently does, that the license creates "a restraint of trade," is to misrepresent the legal and business situations that drive license diversity. The GPL is chosen, not forced.

As to Wallace's lawsuit, it's bunk. The conscious effort of the free software community to deliver "free" software shouldn't in any way impede Mr. Wallace's efforts to sell his at a higher price, assuming his software is better. What he really wants, it appears, is the opportunity to sell derivative works of *my* software without paying *my* price--a deal the law doesn't require me to give him.

No kidding, Andrew. You need to look into this. You won't end up with dog doo on your shoes this time, either, if you write about it. I promise.

You might like to do a search on Google for "Daniel Wallace" and "GPL", so you can get a measure of the man. By the way, he did have an account on Groklaw, back in the early days, and then he left, because no one accepted his wrongo ideas about the GPL. So many able comments made him look completely wrong about the GPL, I guess he gave up and left for greener pastures.

Of course, Ms. O'Gara discovered this anti-GPL lawsuit by means of her constant scouring of Indiana civil suits in Federal court, I'm sure. We know she lives to understand the law, and we wish her the very best in her pursuit of specialized knowledge. Here's a hint: the proper docket number if you are searching on PACER is 1:2005-CV-00618, or 1:02-CV-00518, not "1:05-cv-0618-JDT-TAB", as Ms. O'Gara wrote. That's the Civil Complaint number stamped on the complaint, but it's not the PACER number, so you can't find it that way. Just a tip. You can also search for it by "Free Software Foundation". Or read the complaint here [PDF] for a belly laugh.

[UPDATE: Some are complaining they are having trouble with the PDF. If you are too, please try this version. Or update Acrobat Reader. That seems to solve it for some.]

True fixations don't fade upon confronting facts that disprove them, of course, and so finally Wallace has brought a lawsuit against the FSF seeking to outlaw the GPL. I know. It's hilarious. Like the courts are going to shut down the software industry's Linux cash cow, because Mr. Wallace says he personally can't make a living due to the GPL. Hint to gumout: you could try changing your business model. Just a suggestion. You too, SCO.

What? He couldn't find a lawyer to represent him? I can't help but wonder, if we watch carefully, if we'll find a Microsoft and/or SCO tie. Let's see if a lawyer volunteers his services or feeds suggestions informally. If there is a conspiracy, might the strategy be to have someone fight the GPL who has nothing to lose, unlike SCO, who can't fight the GPL and still distribute GPL'd code -- which they still do -- and who are vulnerable to copyright infringement claims, brought by IBM (and conceivably to be brought by the FOSS community at large) if they don't accept the validity of the GPL and yet distribute GPL'd code? Wallace certainly seems to share SCO's original ideas on the GPL and how it is ruining the marketplace for proprietary software. Remember Darl's Open letter on copyright, which I called "Darl's Greed is Good Manifesto"? And then there is the fact that MOG keeps giving him prominence when no one else I've seen takes him seriously.

Hey, FSF. I hope you are subpoenaeing his emails -- and Maureen O'Gara's too -- going back a couple of years, at least. We might get to the bottom of the conspiracy, if it exists, if my instinct is right. (Do I hear the sound of delete buttons clicking all over the country?... naughty, naughty. Oh, and smashing your hard drive... it's been tried, and it didn't work.)

Just for history's sake, here is one attorney's answer to a Daniel Wallace letter to the editor Linux Business Week published (back when they called it that, prior to waking up to the fact that their name was a trademark violation), under the article title, "SCO Wins Convert to its GPL-Is-Invalid Argument". His letter was signed as "associate member" of the FSF, implying conversion. Trust me. There was no conversion. He must have joined the FSF the same way he joined Groklaw, to attack, one presumes, as he now has done officially. Just a truly dishonorable moment in journalistic history, in my book. Oh, he's not a lawyer, either, which his letter did not make clear.

For information on the MySQL case, I collected some back in July of 2003. Here's an attorney explaining the judge's order [PDF] and how it validated the GPL in Progress Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, 1st Cir., No. 02-1402. The Free Software Foundation's attorney, Eben Moglen, submitted an affidavit in the case, which is here.

The dynamic duo. Maureen O'Gara and Daniel Wallace. What a couple. It's a metaphor, one that informs us which side will win this anti-GPL war -- you can tell by the quality of the warriors on each side that the winner won't be Microsoft. They'd best learn to get along with and play nicely with the GPL. Get some execs on it right away, Microsoft. This is a Quixotic quest that can only damage you, battling the GPL. Windmills can hurt you if you draw your sword to fight them, as can the GPL.

UPDATE:

Groklaw's belzecue has found a helpful press release regarding the MySQL case, but I'll let him tell you himself:

MOG says:

NuSphere maintained that it hadn’t violated the GPL at all. It said the idea that it violated the license by statically linking proprietary software to MySQL is an extreme interpretation of the GPL.

It also claimed that MySQL had broken the GPL by adding conditions, something GPL disallows, demanding that a commercial license be used for code distributed over a network because of linking.

NuSphere had a problem with the Free Software Foundation’s view that even a trivial violation of the GPL puts the licensee at the mercy of the licensor, who may legally refuse to re-authorize the licensee to distribute the licensor’s GPL software even if the licensee fully rectifies his earlier violation.

Now, how about we let NuSphere speak for itself:

BEDFORD, Mass. and UPPSALA, Sweden-November 7, 2002 — NuSphere Corporation, an independent operating company of Progress Software Corporation, and MySQL AB, developer of the world's most popular open source database, today announced a settlement of the dispute between the two companies regarding use of the MySQL™ trademarks, copyrights, and compliance with the GNU General Public License (GPL). The settlement resolves all outstanding issues between the two companies including ownership and use of trademarks and domain names and assignment to MySQL AB of copyrights for all NuSphere contributions to the MySQL program, and MySQL AB has issued a letter to NuSphere Corporation verifying GPL compliance .

  


Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk." | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 04:57 PM EDT
PJ, nothing but love, but don't you think going into Godwin territory is a bad
move? I'm sure there's some other analagous situation that would fit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: Kosh Nanarek on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT


---
"And so, it begins."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT

I hate to have to say this, but I'm bored with
Ms O'Gara and even more by Mr. Wallace. I
certainly *don't* thing I care to see an organized
tally of the errors of either.

A waste of bandwidth.

Mr Rosen wrote a fine book: if others want to
misconstrue his work, let them. I hate the notion
of amplifying their gnat-like buzzing.

---
Peter H. Salus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Post Off-Topic here
Authored by: clark_kent on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT
No swearing!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:04 PM EDT

I hate to have to say this, but I'm bored with
Ms O'Gara and even more by Mr. Wallace. I
certainly *don't* think I care to see an organized
tally of the errors of either.

A waste of bandwidth.

Mr Rosen wrote a fine book: if others want to
misconstrue his work, let them. I hate the notion
of amplifying their gnat-like buzzing.

---
Peter H. Salus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Authored by: Rasyr on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:06 PM EDT
I thinkt that the "Groklaw Gadfly" remark is meant to make folks think
that perhaps Groklaw is anti-GPL or something....

Either that or MOG really has no clue about reality and thinks that everybody
who dislikes her stories (Daniel Wallace tends to mouth off at MOG quite a bit)
is part of Groklaw....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:07 PM EDT
I don't think Wallace is being helped by Microsoft. Some people are fanatical
enough to spend their money on crazy lawsuits and ignore all the facts.
It's like the creationists who attack evolutionary biology without knowing
anything about science in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Daniel's confused
Authored by: toads_for_all on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:07 PM EDT
Ummm Daniel.....how can you be both the Plaintiff and the Defendant?

Are you suing yourself?

Under "Damages":

"The Defendant Daniel Wallace is educated in the art of science physics and
computer programming."

He obviously isn't educated in legal filing procedures.

And he goes on referring to himself as the "Defendant."

He should have asked Jeff Merkey for help filing this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Authored by: eggplant37 on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:09 PM EDT
I've read the complaint. I must say that I don't understand how Wallace thinks
he can succeed with this rubbish, but hey, if he thinks he can go for it, go,
dude. Just another comedian in the sea of faces in my own humble estimation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Misunderstanding
Authored by: TomWiles on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:11 PM EDT
Andrew (TheRegister) has posted a very reasonable article where (kind of) he
admits he did not know about the Third Amended Claim and therefore was a little
harsh in his criticism.

As I mentioned in a post to an earlier article, I kind of thought that Andrew
had missed (was unaware) the Third Amendment Claim.

I think this particular topic has had sufficient review that we might consider
moving on. (Be understanding and a little less harsh -- maybe?)

Tom

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:12 PM EDT
So are there any ideas as to why all this diversion is being thrown at us?

WB

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wallace is suing FSF?
Authored by: Jude on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:12 PM EDT
Isn't this a bit like suing a publisher of "ready-made" legal papers
(apartment leases, etc) that can be purchased in many business supply outlets?

FSF only wrote GPL, and they don't make anybody use it. If Wallace has a gripe
because some software is licensed under GPL, he should take it up with the
software's copyright holder.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Global implications if the unthinkable happens
Authored by: Freespirit on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:13 PM EDT
Ok, just for the sake of argument, what would be the long term consequences if
this Wallace suit against the GPL is actually successful?

I live in europe, and I seriously doubt even the most pro american govnernments
"over here" would even dream of outlawing the GPL or open source
software in general. On the contrary, many governments are just realising the
cost and quality benefits of switching from proprietary software to open
source.

I do not think this is a situation the USA really wants to place itself in.
Foreign buisnesses able to benefit from open source software would gain a huge
competetive advantage over domestic ones stuck with only proprietary solutions
to choose from. Oh, and I wonder what would happen to proprietary software
prices should the competition from open source be eliminated...

Of course, this does not take the more buisness friendly (e.g the BSD-licenses)
into account.

Just my late night ramblings. Pardon my gramma and spelling errors and any lack
of coherent though brought on by lack of sleep :-P

Freespirit

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gadfly
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:14 PM EDT
Perhaps my understanding of English is incomplete; it's only my native tongue
for the last 40 years (albeit in Canada). I fail to understand how Ms. O'Gara
is wrong about Mr. Wallace being a "Groklaw gadfly".

IIRC, a gadfly is a particular species that irritates horses. The Groklaw
search engine suggests that several such irritating spates have infested Groklaw
over the last several years. But perhaps the problem is someone interprets the
'Groklaw' adjective as exclusive. But, that doesn't seem apt in this case.

As a result, it mars an otherwise excellent piece with a taint of pettiness.
Ms. O'Gara can be right once in a while -- in this case, only about the
tangential point that Wallace _is_ a Groklaw gadfly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Gadfly - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:03 PM EDT
  • Gadfly - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:17 PM EDT
  • Gadfly - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:18 PM EDT
  • Gadfly - Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 10:14 PM EDT
  • Gadfly - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 03:52 PM EDT
MOG trying, but failing
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:16 PM EDT
I noticed at the bottom of MOG's article, she states:
"For those who are looking for it, Mr. Wallace’s suit against the Free Software Foundation is Civil Complaint No. 1:05-cv-0618-JDT-TAB."

Now she is actually citing court docket numbers? Wow... I'd never thought I'd see the day when "The National Enquirer" of tech analysts turns to a "US News and World Report"-type reporting manner. Not that I'm convinced she's truly changed.

It's too little, too late, AFAIC. She singlehandedly destroyed her reputation with her disastrous reporting on the Canopy case. Now she thinks she can save it by citing docket numbers? Not quite.

If she thinks she can even touch PJ's reporting style, she is highly disillusioned. So what else is new??

---
Collaborative efforts synergise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gadfly?
Authored by: cbc on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:19 PM EDT
I did a GOOGLE define:gadfly and got...

#1 pest: a persistently annoying person
#2 any of various large flies that annoy livestock
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

#3 "Gadfly" is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing
upsetting or novel questions, or attempts to stimulate innovation by proving an
irritant.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(social)

#4 *A gadfly can be any of a number of species of flies especially, but not
exclusively, of the genera Tabanidae or Oestridae.
#5 *In computing, Gadfly is a SQL relational database in the language Python.
#6 * Gadfly Records is an independent record label.
#7 *"Gadfly" is also a term for people who upset the status quo; the
most famous one, in this context, perhaps being Socrates.
#8 * SA-11 "Gadfly" is the NATO reporting name for the russian
surface-to-air missile Novator KS-172 AAM-L.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly

Perhaps MOG meant one of definitions 1,2,4,5,6, or 8

[ Reply to This | # ]

MOG is a paid to lie, work she willingly accepts.
Authored by: kawabago on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:19 PM EDT
MOG doesn't care what she prints as long as she gets paid for it. For MOG,
there is no search for truth. She has no integrity, no authority and seeminly
also no knowledge. What service does she offer the public? None. She has a
future, lies always need spreading by someone that is willing to pay. But in
the great grand scheme of things, Maureen O'Gara will not be remembered by
anyone. That is why she hates Groklaw so much.

---
AYNIL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:21 PM EDT
The links to linuxbusinessweek.com don't appear to work. Is that URL no longer
valid?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could be a nice backfire
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:26 PM EDT
If he looses how far does this go towards supporting and validating the GPL?

Tufty
NLI

[ Reply to This | # ]

let him pay, we've been waiting for this day
Authored by: Paul Shirley on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:28 PM EDT
If Daniel Wallace wants to fund the long awaited legal test of the GPL why
should we complain. Unfortunately I get the feeling this won't actually make it
to court, the court probably won't accept it and MOG,Wallace and co. will spin
some interesting tale about the non-event.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:29 PM EDT
It's a pity that Groklaw does not have the ability to harness that $1 million
defense fund for open source software set aside by Red Hat. I would sure like to
see MOG justify those statements in court of law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No tin foil hat needed.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:30 PM EDT
PJ

I love groklaw, its a daily (sometimes hourly) stop for me. I realize the
latest rounds from MOG and SCO might make you feel a bit defensive. Rest
assured the community you've built vastly outnumbers the crackpots (Yes, MOG and
Darl included).

Stop looking for conspiracies, aliens, MS connections etc. Those connections,
if they exist, will become apperant soon enough. Stick to the facts, and if you
can find direct mistakes in things like MOG's articles, great (like shooting
ducks in a barrel :)).

Is there really anyone who doesn't think MOG is an idiot? I doubt she can
install Windows XP without tech support - sad for someone 'in the business'

[ Reply to This | # ]

Daniel Wallace's Phone Number
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:30 PM EDT
PJ,
It appears that Mr. Wallaces phone number is listed at the bottom of the
complaint. You might want to take it down and remove/obscure that one line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 09:03 PM EDT
    • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 10:40 PM EDT
  • Daniel Wallace's Phone Number - Authored by: penfold on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 09:06 PM EDT
Antitrust
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 05:34 PM EDT
It is obvious Wallace is whining about:

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1

§ 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in
restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign
nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or
engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be
deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine
not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000,
or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments,in the
discretion of the court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You know what's truly sad?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:13 PM EDT
Is if it wasn't for Groklaw, I would have no idea who Maureen O'Gara is. It's
unfortunate Groklaw is one of MOG's biggest (albeit not intentionally)
promoters.

I know you want/have to answer the FUD, but I wish there was a way of doing it
where you didn't have to give them advertising.

But for what it's worth, I never follow the links to MOG's articles. She
doesn't deserve my traffic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:14 PM EDT
"Windmills can hurt you if you draw your sword to fight them, as can the
GPL"

Don Quixote was tilting a windmills and he was lucky to come out alive and in
one piece - not that he learned anything from that experience. A few centuries
later, Daniel Wallace is not tilting at a windmill but running headlong into a
propeller (mincemeat) or a jet engine (ground meat, well-done in view of the jet
engine's heat).

I welcome the fact that DW is suing the FSF: I am sure that the court system has
unpleasant ways to deal with crackpot lawsuits and the crackpots who bring them.
DW's dingbat assertion that the GPL amounts to price fixing is all the more
ridiculous in view of the fact that quite a few Open Source software providers
run a dual commercial/Open Source operation. DW: if you are going to sue
someone, the least you could do is have some kind of a grasp about the reality
around you!

As for the destructive potential of the MOG-DW duo, my assessment is that two
times zero is zero - a tsunami in a toilet bowl.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw gadfly
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:26 PM EDT
As a real Groklaw Gadfly, I'm offended that Maureen would assign that honorific
to an "eccentric" like Wallace.

She only used it so she could get the word Groklaw into her article because her
page views go up exponentially when she mentions Groklaw.

I hope someone at agrees to represent Mr. Wallace pro bono, so we can finally
get a US court to rule unequivocally that the GPL falls squarely within the
rights granted to authors under copyright. Up to now no one with actual money
at stake has been willing to fight it. All of the rulings so far have been
around the edges and although the GPL has not been found invalid, neither has
there been a clear validation. No one has so far been dumb enough to try to
invalidate it.

I'd be interested in how Mr. Wallace interprets laws against price fixing to
require that he be able to charge more for his product than the people who are
doing the price fixing want to for theirs. He's standing the price fixing laws
on their head. It's also difficult to see how with 4 gillion Linux Distribution
there is any restraint of trade.

I wonder how long this will survive? I suggest that we start a pool, I imagine
it will be dismissed on summary judgment quickly.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this even worthy of an article?
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:33 PM EDT
Hmmm....

As far as I can tell, the suite tries to bring action over an organization (FSF) for price fixing products (RedHat/SuSE) that they did not write, nor own the bulk of copyright for (although they contributed - I will give him that), nor have any say in the selling of such, for price fixing when one of these products currently sells, and the other used to sell (RedHat, for personal use, is no longer available for sale in the retail stores) for a price not more than the cost of burning the CD and printing the manuals!

Not only that but anyone can sell the same product (including him) for whatever price he likes without license costs!

Is this news? or is it a joke?

Web Sig:Eddy Currents

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shouldn't he have filed on April 1st?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:37 PM EDT
He doesn't number his paragraphs

He doesn't allege *ANY* facts about the FSF's alleged scheme, just that it
involves Novell and Red Hat - just a bald assertion that there is a scheme
somehow involving the GPL and FSF.

He ignores the fact that the software the FSF is distributing under the GPL, is
largely (if not completely) different from the software that Novell and Red Hat
is distributing under the GPL.

He ignores the fact that his own complaint about pricing fixing is contradicted
by the text of the GPL. See
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney for
why.

And his requested relief, even if (in the remotely unlike case) it were granted,
presumably would get the result he or the like-minds would want. Namely the
result would be no FSF software licensed under the GPL, no copyright license to
Mr Wallace or the like-minded (unless the FSF choose to release under a new
license), and therefore no use of the FSF code by Mr Wallace or the
like-minded.

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

And suicide is painless
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 06:42 PM EDT


Reading the complaint made me think of the theme from MASH. I don't know Daniel
Wallace, but having read the complaint it looks like he's intent on self
destruction. Even though I disagree with him, I feel sorry for him - he's just
walked into the Lion's den wearing a loincloth and carrying only a wet noodle
for a weapon.

Think of it as evolution in action!



---
Wayne

telnet hatter.twgs.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Boston is in Maine!?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 07:00 PM EDT

Wallace is so stupid that he didn't even bother proofreading to check for
obvious typos. The complaint says that FSF is based in Maine ... and then on the
next line it gives the address as Boston, MA. Clearly somebody is too stupid to
realize the MA is Massachusetts, not Maine. You'd figure that the keyword
"Boston" should have tipped him off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this a valid filing?
Authored by: ronhughes on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 07:13 PM EDT
In the parties section of the filing he states that the FSF is based in the
State of Maine and then provides a Massachusetts mailing address. Even the FSF
know where they are based, it's on their web page in the 'About Us' section.
IANAL but with this confusing misinformation I can tell this guy does not verify
his facts, much less his filings. And as for his business model… he already
can’t get products to Maine (ME not MA) if he tried to mail them.

Just my ½ cent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
Authored by: deternal on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 07:17 PM EDT
Just saw this in the article and wanted to comment:
<blockquote>And everybody on the dark side attacks Groklaw these days,
including Ms. O'Gara, not just Daniel Wallace. I'm starting to figure out it's
coordinated, not random. They seem to just pass the baton around, taking turns
like Nazi interrogators in World War II beating prisoners, so none of them ever
got tired but the victim never got a moment's relief, not that it helped them
win the war.</blockquote>

This is common practice for attacking someone, a group or an idea. The most
common area is religion, but also lots of areas where big bucks can be made.

The idea is to make people look down on, or think that the group, person, idea
is not trustworthy, reliable, useable.

The softwarepatent debate is full of this - pro sw patent lobbyists in the eu
have the stance "it restricts current practice (which allows software
patents, which currently are not permissable by law), or even worse that the EU
CIID is not concerning software patents.

Of course "new age" religions have been hit hard too - in this day and
age all new religions are referred to as "cults" (a cult by the way,
is a secluded, closed and secretive group, thus open religions like jehoves
witnesses, the mormons etc. hardly can be considered as such). And referenced to
the "New Heaven" cult (I think that was the name of the cult where
most members committed group suicide), are thrown about liberally.

Discrediting people, or groups who oppose the pro sw patent, pro restrictive
copyright, anti-gpl stance thus is first order of business for these guys.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Price fixing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 07:18 PM EDT
Then consider the differences in RedHat vs SuSE vs Progeny - or consider the
price differences between MySQL's commercial and GPL versions. What a wierd
angle to take.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How many grounds for dismissal?
Authored by: overshoot on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 07:19 PM EDT
I'm trying to figure the half-life of this thing.

I don't suppose that the Court will even see it until the FSF files a motion to dismiss, so a sua sponte dismissal is out of the question.

More interesting, though, is the challenge: how many different grounds are there for dismissing this non-case?

  • Jurisdiction: The FSF hasn't availed itself of any market in the Court's jurisdiction, not being in business and all ...
  • Failure to state a claim for which relief can be given: he doesn't really say what he wants, even. Is it to block the FSF from publication? Is it to appropriate the FSF's copyrighted works? He doesn't say.
  • Standing: I'm pretty sure the complaint is deficient there, too, but don't know how exactly.
  • Please add others -- you know you want to.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Contract?
    Authored by: CypherOz on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 07:36 PM EDT
    DW's complaint argues that there is a *contract* between the Copyright holder
    (FSF or author) and the user of the GPL software.

    I thought there was no contract, only a grant of license?

    If any contract exists (assuming a purchase), it might be between say Redhat and
    the user for the media and support of the GPL product, but not for the product
    itself.

    Also how can there be collusion on pricing when the terms of the GPL say you can
    charge anything for the software?

    How does a GPL'd product stop DW writing another 'better' product and selling it
    as proprietary?

    I don't get it - is DW stupid or is it time for a conspiracy theory about who is
    backing him? :-)

    --
    I am definitely NOT a lawyer, I'm an Ozzie!! Oi Oi Oi!!

    The GPL is not viral - it is enduring!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Is it me...
    Authored by: AMc on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 07:55 PM EDT
    ... or does every headline list for Sys-Con read like a simulated headline from
    the newscroller in the SimCity series of games? I swear all we need is a llama
    sighting and a few quotes about "Windows is the prefered choice of SimCats
    everywhere - SimKitten".

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    PJ using a Mac?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 08:01 PM EDT
    Why does the link to the attorney's reply end in "client=safari"?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Next Scare Lawsuit initiated by the Darkside?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT

    With the defuding of SCOG and a case which may die in the next few months is this the next attack orchestrated by ????

    MOG has been comprehensively trashed by Groklaw, and as the SCOG suit is approaching some critical rulings the darkside may have decided to fund an alternate scare story(s).

    Painting the Monterey saga as somehow helpfull to SCOG.

    Suggestions that SVR4 may have contaminated Linux and the false link between Linus and Minix.

    Now Daniel Wallace?

    They're grasping at straws.

    Brian S.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Amusing
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 08:22 PM EDT
    Amusing that Darl's open letter on copyright is still there proclaiming that "SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws." and "we believe that adoption and use of the GPL by significant parts of the software industry was a mistake." ... even though now they have changed their story. Kind of deflates the whole open letter, don't you think?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Amusing - Authored by: moosie on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:32 AM EDT
    Open Letter to Daniel Wallace
    Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 08:42 PM EDT
    Mr. Wallace,

    You might want to reconsider the defendant in your complaint. Seriously, MS is a much better target, and certainly have lots of experience with price-fixing computer software. They certainly carry the brunt of the blame when it comes to you personally not being able to find work in the Windows world. You see, the reason is that people are tired of the MS lockin, so finding new Windows development work will be difficult. Why hire someone to develop new software for a platform that you want to abandon? But, don't feel like you've been picked on specifically. MS has caused many more people (in the hundreds of thousands at least) to lose their jobs in the IT industry because of their actions. In fact, I'll bet you could get additional supporters for your cause if you reworked your complaint. In fact, it's really simple with the proper editor and open file format.

    Try these simple substitution commands to start with.

    On page 2:

    s/FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION/MICROSOFT CORPORATION/

    s/Free Software Foundation/Microsoft Corporation/
    s/59 Temple Place, Suite 330/One Microsoft Way/
    s/Boston, MA 02111-1307/Redmond, WA 98052-6399/

    I hope you understand the pattern.

    You'll have to actually rework the complaint itself on your own, or better yet, with the help of a lawyer.

    Obviously, Red Hat and Novell will have to be dropped, and instead drag in in some Windows OEMS (they may actually be quite helpful to your cause).

    P.S. While you are waiting for the courts to handle your complaint, I recommend downloading Kanotix or Ubuntu from the net and start learning GNU/Linux. You know, with all of that spare time on your hands not being able to do Windows development and all, you might want to start learning a marketable skill.

    HTH. HAND.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Where's the Beef?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 08:44 PM EDT
    I see a lot of ridicule but...

    Has anyone refuted Wallace's jurisdiction statute
    28 U.S.C. sec. 1337(a) ?

    Has anyone refuted his venue statute
    28 U.S.C. 1391(a)2 ?

    Has anyone refuted his standing statute
    15 U.S.C. sec. 26 ?

    Typographical errors are easily fixed in a lawsuit.

    Somebody needs to refute this law stuff.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 09:48 PM EDT
    Well, considering what gara means in Hebrew, O'Gara's writing is really in
    character...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: tredman on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 10:23 PM EDT
    "The Defendant respectfully requests the Court grant a permanent injunction
    prohibiting the promotion or use of the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE by the FREE
    SOFTWARE FOUNDATION INC. to artificially control the pricing of computer
    software programs in the course of commerce conducted in the United
    States."

    So many things are wrong with this document, but let's just hit the high points,
    shall we?

    - I don't remember the Defendant asking for any such thing. I don't recall Eben
    asking anybody for a permanent injunction of anything.

    - Daniel Wallace is acting as his own counsel. NOOOOOOOOO. Couldn't tell.

    - Wallace: FSF, don't use the GPL to price fix.
    FSF: Okay.

    - The FSF is known for creating and maintaining the GPL. The last I checked,
    they weren't exactly a major user of it. Is this going to be another case of
    somebody thinking that just because the FSF develops the license, that they have
    to step in for everybody that uses it? That would be like somebody writing P2P
    software, releasing it under the GPL, and then the RIAA/MPAA going after
    Stallman and the gang because some twit is using it to make Metallica pay for
    their public relations savvy.

    - I'm trying to figure out, between heartful, deep gut laughs, which laws
    exactly were broken here. The only one I see is, perhaps, a potentially
    frivolous lawsuit.

    That's all I got. Hope Eben eats him for lunch.


    ---
    Tim
    "I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 11:00 PM EDT
      • Huh? - Authored by: tredman on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 11:45 PM EDT
        • Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 08:39 AM EDT
    • What... things like gcc? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 12:50 PM EDT
    Counties of residence vs. mailing address
    Authored by: dengel on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 10:49 PM EDT
    There is so much to laugh at in this complaint, but here is an odd thing I
    noticed: He identifies himself as a "citizen and resident of Hamilton
    County." That's fine; I am, too. I have to wonder, then, why he chooses,
    for purposes of this suit, to use a PO box in Hancock County.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 11:23 PM EDT
    So Daniel Wallace is both plaintiff and defendant? And he's accusing the FSF
    of.... what exactly? Is it just me or does this sounds as laughable as NewSCO's
    "You stole somemat of mine, but I ain't gonna tell ya what"
    complaint?

    What is WRONG with these people?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: billposer on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 11:45 PM EDT

    Leaving aside the dubious premises of this suit, it isn't clear to me that the relief requested by Wallace is within the power of the court to grant. Wallace requests two forms of relief: (a) an injunction prohibiting the FSF from promoting the GPL; (b) an injunction prohibiting anyone from using the GPL. Now, the first is within the power of the court. The FSF is a party to the suit and the court may be able to order the FSF not to promote the GPL. (I say may because there are First Amendment issues here.) However, this alone would provide no actual relief for Wallace since the cat is out of the bag and people will continue to use the GPL whether or not the FSF continues to promote it.

    What would provide actual relief to Wallace (to the extent that he has actually been damaged) is the general prohibition of use of the GPL. I don't think that the court has the power to issue such a prohibition. As I understand it, the court basically has authority only over parties to a suit. It can't, in general, go around issuing orders to all and sundry. The court's authority over non-parties is limited to the administration of justice, e.g. preserving and obtaining evidence, compelling witnesses to testify, controlling the behavior of jurors and lawyers.

    In sum, I think that this suit will be dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. As an aside, it is probably a sign of amateurism that the plaintiff fails to add a request for "and such other relief as this honorable court may see fit to grant", which I believe is common in suits filed by real lawyers as a way of encouraging the court to be creative. Perhaps one of the actual or retired lawyers here can confirm or refute my view of hte limited powers of the court.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: hank scorpio on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:11 AM EDT
    glibc contains over 15Mb ever see a GNU/Linux distribution run without it?
    A very large number (probably close to the majority all though that is a blue sky guess) of running linux installations don't use the GNU libC at all. Instead use the GPL licensed, non-FSF copyrighted uClibc. Embedded linux really isn't all that visible, but most of the big chipset suppliers in wireless networking (Broadcomm, Connexant, Atheros, TI) and multimedia set top box and DVD SOCs (Thompson/ST Micro, IBM¸ Freescale, Sigma Designs amongst others) ship linux SDKs using uClibc for their ARM/MIPS/SuperH/PowerPC/Coldfire designs. There are an awful lot of Linksys WRT54Gs and Tivos in the wild.....

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • uClibc vs. GNU libs - Authored by: Trithemius on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 12:06 PM EDT
    • GNU libc - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:17 PM EDT
      • GNU libc - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 02:21 PM EDT
    Are we taking bets on how long the US court system will take to deal with it.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:37 AM EDT
    One year, two, three four. Using SCO/IBM as the yard stick
    this one could provide entertainment for years. But then
    he hasn't got $10 million to run the show.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Not only is it "Bunk" but the ethics are questionable.
    Authored by: AH1 on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:52 AM EDT
    I will apologize in advance for what could be interpreted as being some
    politically incorrect attacks on Ms. O'Gara and Mr. Wallace. Unfortunately, I
    can find nothing in the background or writings of either one of these
    individuals that are either credible or meet the minimum standard of ethics for
    their profession. I will start with Mr. Wallace. I can find nothing, other
    than his court filings (and associated publicity) to indicate that this
    gentleman has been trained in the “art” of physics and computer science. If I
    were to analyze his statements in the court filing that “the defendant is
    educated in the art and science of physics and computer programming.” My
    question is “does Mr. Wallace hold a degree from an accredited university in
    either of these subjects?” I did a short literature search of professional
    physics societies and found no hits related to technical publications. As a
    result, I can not vouch for his technical expertise. What I can say is that Mr.
    Wallace would have a difficult time selling any product he produced based on his
    “technical standing.” After reading the complaint I would like to refer Mr.
    Wallace to the following two web sites that discuss Professional codes of
    conduct and ethics. The first is:
    American Physical Society Code of
    Conduct
    http://onlineethics.org/codes/APScode.html
    There is one statement on
    this web site that I would like to highlight for Mr. Wallace.
    Fabrication of
    data or selective reporting of data with the intent to mislead or deceive is an
    egregious departure from the expected norms of scientific conduct, as is the
    theft of data or research results from others.

    My second reference for Mr.
    Wallace comes from:
    Computer Engineering Code of
    Ethics
    http://www.acm.org/serving/se/code.htm

    In this case I wold like to draw
    his attention to the following principles.
    1. PUBLIC - Software engineers shall
    act consistently with the public interest.

    4. JUDGMENT - Software engineers
    shall maintain integrity and independence in their professional judgment.
    5.
    MANAGEMENT - Software engineering managers and leaders shall subscribe to and
    promote an ethical approach to the management of software development and
    maintenance.
    6. PROFESSION - Software engineers shall advance the integrity and
    reputation of the profession consistent with the public interest.
    7. COLLEAGUES
    - Software engineers shall be fair to and supportive of their colleagues.
    My
    comments to Ms. O'Gara are a “little” less polite. Ms. O'Gara has demonstrated
    that she is being paid to be a Journalist. Unfortunately Ms. O'Gara has left us
    with a wealth of articles that demonstrate her level of competence as a
    “journalist.” Under normal circumstances I would “write off” Ms. O'Gara's
    reporting as being “typical” of the ilk that comes from the media.
    Unfortunately, my sister is a journalist and my niece is studying to become a
    journalist. Neither one of these two people would CONSIDER publishing the
    “drivel” that Ms. O'Gara places her byline to. The difference is that both of
    them are TRAINED PROFESSIONALS WHO BELIEVE IN A CODE OF JOURNALISTIC CONDUCT.
    I would like to refer Ms. O'Gara to the journalism.org website. More
    specifically, the following link:
    Journalism Ethics
    Checklist
    http://www.journalism.org/resources/tools/ethics/codes/checklist.asp?f
    rom=print
    1.What do I know? What do I need to know?
    2.What is my journalistic
    purpose?
    3.What are my ethical concerns?
    4.What organizational policies and
    professional guidelines should I consider?
    5.How can I include other people,
    with different perspectives and diverse ideas, in the decision making
    process?
    6.Who are the stakeholders-those affected by my decision? What are
    their motivations? Which are legitimate?
    7.What if the roles were reversed? How
    would I feel if I were in the shoes of one of the stakeholders?
    8.What are the
    possible consequences of my actions? Short term? Long term?
    9.What are my
    alternatives to maximize my truth telling responsibility and minimize
    harm?
    10.Can I clearly and fully justify my thinking and my decision? To my
    colleagues? To the stakeholders? To the public?

    If Ms. O'Gara were to apply
    half the principles on the checklist, and answer the questions HONESTLY then her
    reporting would be much more balanced, honest, and BELIEVEABLE.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Um, slow down..
    Authored by: cheros on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:56 AM EDT
    I note with interest the immediate assertion that MS is behind this. Other than
    being a beneficiary I don't see any evidence of that, it appears Mr Wallace is
    quite capable of being silly *without* any external, um,
    "inspiration".

    Let's stay with a slightly more measured approach - there's plenty of time for
    such assertions once we have a pattern - Mr Wallace hasn't quite made it into
    one yet IMHO other than a generic one where attacking GPL/Open Source/Free
    Software et al yield lots of publicity (or hits). Being trigger happy about
    this is making the problem worse (IMHO, of course).

    = Ch =

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Those who can, do. Those who can't.. well...
    Authored by: valdis on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:57 AM EDT
    Daniel Wallace claims to be versed in the "art of computer programming".

    Unfortunately for his marketability, he doesn't seem to have much of a handle on how to leverage the tools he has available. Although he sees the GPL as a liability, I'm able to make it into an asset:

    • I can quickly leverage already available GPL tools - every time I can find GPL packages (anywhere from dozens to millions of lines of code) that I don't have to waste time writing. Remember - the client probably is not terribly interested in how many lines of code it takes - they're interested in having their business problem solved.
    • I can actually command a higher per-hour billable rate. Somebody trying to sell the client a 50K line custom-written package is going to end up racking up a lot of billable hours, at a huge cost to the client. A thousand billable hours at $50/hour is pretty expensive (and 50K lines of code in 1K hours is just a nuts pace - it will take far longer. If I can come in and take several GPL packages and spend 2 days at $500/hour gluing it together, I can save the client a lot of money - and they'll remember it the next time they need work done.
    • I can guarantee there will be no code-escrow issues - I can leave them every single line of code, all GPL'ed, and if I get hit by a bus or they simply find another contractor next time, there won't be any lock-in issues.
    • Did I mention that with that outrageous per-hour, I can afford to take a lot of vacation? Remember - the client is willing to spend $X to solve their problem, and they really don't care if it's 100 hours at $X/100 hour, or 10 hours at $X/10 per hour (although I most certainly care). And I may be able to land even more money by solving the problem this week, not 3 weeks from now.
    • Or I can do it in 10 hours at $X/20 hour, get the job done at half the price and a fraction of the time, and let the word-of-mouth do the work of landing my next billables for me....

    Of course, the crucial distinction is that although I've been programming for a quarter century, I've managed to keep focused on the fact that when you get right down to it, writing code is merely a means to an end. The people paying my paycheck in general don't really care about my ability as a coder - they are paying for my expertise in solving their business problem.

    And Daniel Wallace apparently never learned that distinction.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Errors in complaint
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:58 AM EDT
    Wallace seems to have a hard time deciding who the Defendant is. He repeatedly
    refers to himself as the defendant. Not much to fear here if this is the
    quality of the preparation.

    JNB

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Orlowski respondant states aibm should Sue oldSCO
    Authored by: dmarker on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 02:05 AM EDT

    Below is part of Orlowski's defence of his sideswipe at Groklaw. In it he uses the royal plural 'we' which in my book is a sure sign of delusions of grandeur or of responding defensively ('we' always sounds like the writer has an army backing him up in agreement rather than just his own pinioned voice). But putting aside his use of the 'we' word through the whole article, he does quote an interesting response to his article which if the person were to step forward, could be helpful here.

    [A.O.]
    The Mystery That Never Was diverted the community's energies, for almost a month. We're glad to help it back on track - and add something new to the discussion.

    A former senior employee at The Santa Cruz Operation during this period has stepped forward to shed light on the project. It's an angle we haven't heard before.

    [Responder]
    Your article is a very good rejoinder, but there is even more to the story.

    Firstly SCO considered themselves a big player. Late in the 1990s Compaq was selling in the region of $1 billion a year of hardware to run SCO operating systems. IBM's number wasn't as large, but it wasn't trivial either. SCO figured you could add the hardware and software ( around $200 million) numbers together to get a true appreciation of the size of the company and compare it to others such as Sun.

    The important thing to remember that Groklaw has overlooked, or doesn't understand, is that kernel and userspace are separate. OpenServer had done well, but the kernel was limited to two processors and getting very long in the tooth. UnixWare's base (SVR4) had gone truly multi-processor in 1989. That is why SCO acquired it in 1995.

    The plan was to add "the enterprise" to SCO's customer base, and to do that you needed serious software that could run on serious hardware. There was also a datacentre acceleration project that some vendors threw money into that was supposed to bring some enterprise functionality early (IIRC Unisys and ICL parted with a few million for this). UnixWare used to do really well in AIM/database benchmarks on x86 hardware. The idea behind Monterey was to combine the best pieces of AIX and UnixWare kernels. For example, the AIX memory manager had a good reputation.This would result in a new, combined kernel for the new enteprise hardware.

    SCO was expecting to migrate their OpenServer customers to UnixWare and especially allow OpenServer binaries to run on UnixWare. Some of the tools, especially the management tools would also be ported. (Monterey was always going to run on 32 bit and 64 Intel chips with IBM seperately having it on PowerPC as you pointed out.)

    Ultimately it wasn't Linux that killed Monterey. SCO simply couldn't put the number of engineers on the project as they had originally agreed (it was going to be 50/50). So slowly over time IBM shouldered more and more of the burden until it all fell away. The processor being repeatedly delayed didn't help.

    I have always wondered why IBM never sued SCO for breach of contract! [name withheld on request]

    - Doug M

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Tilting at Windmills
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 02:20 AM EDT
    Don Quixote was considered a fool because he mistook windmills for giants and
    attacked them.

    By the same token, there is no value in giving coverage to idiots like Daniel
    Wallace and MOG. They are windmills, not giants. The spin madly but they go
    nowhere. Arguing with a fool, or even discussing their ideas even if only to
    refute them, is foolish behaviour in itself. They are no threat. They are
    bumbling clowns. We look like clowns as well when we acknowledge their
    ridiculous claims.

    The same reasoning applies to all the other easy targets like Enderle and
    Merkey. Wasting time on clowns is a fool's game.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Are You Sure You Know What "gadfly" Means?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 02:48 AM EDT
    He would like the GPL outlawed for price fixing or something like that. Ms. O'Gara styles him a "Groklaw gadfly", but as usual, she is wrong. I assure you, Groklaw claims no proprietary rights on this Internet gadfly, who can be found all over expounding his personal theories about the GPL, and whose anti-GPL crackpot theories, ...

    It's pretty obvious that MOG's phrase "Groklaw gadfly" doesn't mean Groklaw owns this particular gadfly. Nor does she mean Daniel Wallace exclusively pesters Groklaw. It's clear to me she means Daniel Wallace is best known for his pestering of Groklaw. He was certainly an anonymous person until PJ gave him the podium he wanted in one of her "Wallace is Wrong" comments. Groklaw shot this particular gadfly into infamy, so I think "Groklaw gadfly" is a rather apt description.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 03:31 AM EDT
    I've sent the following to SugarCRM - one of the advertisers on "Linux
    Business News":

    I would like to suggest that you reconsider running ads on the so-called
    "Linux Business News" Web site.

    The reason for this is the continued exposure given to one Maureen O'Gara by
    this Web site. As demonstrated by the current article appearing here
    (http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/80782.htm) entitled "GPL Sued
    For Software Price Fixing", this so-called "journalist" has
    repeatedly issued factually incorrect and misleading reports concerning Linux
    and open source software in general.

    Details concerning the inaccuracy and misleading statements contained in this
    article - and references to previous such efforts - can be found here
    (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505021223170#c308503)

    Under the guise of "reporting" stories of relevance to Linux and
    business, this person has repeatedly "shilled" for Microsoft and SCO.
    This person has done everything in her power to damage the reputation of open
    source software and Linux in particular.

    Since your company is a stalwart in the open source movement, I am suggesting
    that you inform Linux Business News that you are reconsidering your marketing
    strategy as the very basis of your business model seems to be under continual
    attack from the people they are publishing on their site.

    It doesn't make sense to me to continue to provide advertising revenue to people
    who are determined to undercut and destroy your business model - not when there
    are plenty of other marketing opportunities available.

    Thank you for your attention.


    I think we need to send something similar to every open source advertiser on the
    site.

    It would be interesting to see how many of them will respond positively.

    Richard Steven Hack

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 03:42 AM EDT
    Surely if this case is won then it means that Mr Wallace would be able to force
    software companies to sell him software at a price he dictates because he would
    be able to argue that any price they set would be detrimental to his ability to
    make money from his derivative work?

    It would also mean that he could get ANY software company to give him software
    because it would be detrimental to him otherwise, i.e. he can negate the
    licensing terms. So maybe this isn't a bad thing, we can all get those free
    upgrades to those "evil-but-necessary" software packages we are all
    running...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Rather non-specific, isn't it?
    Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:15 AM EDT
    It it just me or is his complaint really non-specific?

    It doesn't seem to allege any specific improper acts, it failes to enumerate any
    specific damages, and has no basis on which relief may be granted.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 05:11 AM EDT
    MOG says:

    NuSphere maintained that it hadn’t violated the GPL at all. It said the idea that it violated the license by statically linking proprietary software to MySQL is an extreme interpretation of the GPL.

    It also claimed that MySQL had broken the GPL by adding conditions, something GPL disallows, demanding that a commercial license be used for code distributed over a network because of linking.

    NuSphere had a problem with the Free Software Foundation’s view that even a trivial violation of the GPL puts the licensee at the mercy of the licensor, who may legally refuse to re-authorize the licensee to distribute the licensor’s GPL software even if the licensee fully rectifies his earlier violation.

    Now, how about we let NuSphere speak for itself:

    BEDFORD, Mass. and UPPSALA, Sweden-November 7, 2002 — NuSphere Corporation, an independent operating company of Progress Software Corporation, and MySQL AB, developer of the world's most popular open source database, today announced a settlement of the dispute between the two companies regarding use of the MySQL™ trademarks, copyrights, and compliance with the GNU General Public License (GPL). The settlement resolves all outstanding issues between the two companies including ownership and use of trademarks and domain names and assignment to MySQL AB of copyrights for all NuSphere contributions to the MySQL program, and MySQL AB has issued a letter to NuSphere Corporation verifying GPL compliance .

    Well, gosh. Sounds to me like NuSphere was VERY pleased to uphold and validate the GPL, even if they took a roundabout route to get there. And if there was any weakness in the GPL, why would they choose to willingly hand over all copyright in their own code instead of fight to retain it??

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Scope and resources
    Authored by: wHo on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 07:38 AM EDT
    Well I suppose this topic has finally got me to create a user account after
    regular dipping in for 2-3 yrs.

    PJ I think that you are getting too close to this - agreed that when you are
    being personally attacked that it is hard not to be close to it and react, but
    Groklaw has risen to its preeminent position by virtue of its sticking so
    closely to the facts.
    Reacting to MO'G and others articles in the fashion that you have recently is
    understandable but not, I suspect ultimately, very productive.
    I realise that it is incredibly hard but unless you are willing to expand
    significantly the scope of Groklaw's purposes and add much more resources I
    doubt that you are in a position to be able to maintain a even coverage of the
    misreporting in the press (ie there is that much shoddy stuff passed off as
    reportage or journalism these days).Accordingly I would hope that you can bite
    back the bile and stick to what has made Groklaw so good - facts, facts and more
    facts! From what I have seen there are many here who will defend you: think of
    those posts a week or so back when you had the dubious honour of being SCO's
    (or whatever they are actually legally calling themselves this week) CEO's #1
    complaint and the number of pubilically stated - 'if you feel worried call me'
    posts.
    So in close I urge you (and having thought for a day or so on whether to do it
    by email or publically) please, to stick to what has made Groklaw so
    authourititative, and try to lay off the defence of yourself personally here -
    many here will pick up that aspect in comments - I mean look at what has been
    said in the Registrar's article thread not by you.

    BTW OT can I also 'claim' ownership here of the what's happening next I can't
    find it in the timeline? post by anon?
    From the replies to it it seems everything is in a hiatus until those decisions
    - are there no not yet formally revoked times that should have been being met
    apart from the interlocutory application we are all so excited about?

    PS I hate (dont use) spell checkers and my grammer is bad! Comments on those
    aspects of my post will not be likely to produce any changes.

    ---
    IAAL but not in the USA - My advice is worth what you paid me for it!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Hey! How do I
    Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 08:07 AM EDT
    Get referred to as a "Groklaw Gadfly"?!

    ---
    Thanks again,

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Look under the cushion.
    Authored by: Stumbles on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 08:38 AM EDT
    Sure seems a lot of people think PJ is "over the top" with the commentary. Frankly after reading those comments I don't see that at all. In fact I think PJ is doing the right thing calling a spade a spade. Nor do I believe she is attacking them.

    I won't go into a diatribe of these two characters history, that information is freely available. I do believe their absurdity warrents this type of response. Had the history of these two been, ummmm, well..... the words elude me at the moment, lets just say different. I seriously doubt they would be engaged with their current activity.

    The suggestion by some that PJ has some how stooped to their level, lost her morals or fallen of the "fairness wagon" really need to step back and look at things again. All that's been done here is poking holes in what these two characters are currently up to. Not that is a hard thing to do with them.

    What I have not seen much of here by way of comments is the plethora of laws that would have to be negated for this "case" to be won and I think is the main thrust behind PJ's words.

    As some have aptly pointed out. At the very least a whole host of trade laws would have to be either thrown out or rewritten. I don't really see that happening. Also IMV copyright as it stands would have to under go one or both of those events as the trade laws. I don't see that happening either.

    This "case" is as frivolous as it gets and further reduces what little credibility MOG and Wallace had.

    So instead of hammering on the message, how about actually reading the message.

    ---
    You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Not Price Fixing, but Freedom Fixing
    Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 09:11 AM EDT
    That is what they have either failed to understand or have deliberately ignored. The GPL in no way fixes prices, for example boxed sets of GNU/Linux (and all the rest) sell for a variety of prices depending on how much support you get. You can usually buy just a CD at very low cost. But you are paying for service, and for convenience. You can download free, if you prefer. If these are lacking, the consumer will go to another brand.

    But the GPL locks in freedom, for ever, or for at least as long as copyright lasts. No doubt after 70 years in most countries, GPL software will enter the public domain, and then be exploitable by anyone, just like BSD-licensed code is now. But 70 years is far longer than the useful lifespan of any program, so who cares? But until then, the freedom is locked in by copyright law on which the GPL is founded. No-one can take the code and exploit it in a non-free manner.

    I think that is what really irritates these people. They simply do not understand that having freedom gives you rights, but in turn you need to surrender one right, and that is the right to take away the freedom of others. And of course that is the only significanty restriction imposed by the GPL.

    But of course when a Criminal Monopoly founded by a paranoid megalomaniac with no real technical ability, but who can not come to terms with being in second place to anyone, is entering the phase of terminal decline, they will fund their paid shills to write just about anything, if it seems to damage their competition. It doesn't, by the way, it merely discredits the authors and ultimately the Puppetmaster.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 09:21 AM EDT
    I think Daniel Wallace will really need legal representation if he keeps
    referring to himself as the defendant in his own lawsuit.

    Maybe *THAT* is why no one would represent him.

    Scott

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Pure Baloney
    Authored by: Ares_Man on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 09:51 AM EDT
    What in the world kind of ridiculous complaint is this!? Do not all commercial software authors either choose or craft their own use and distribution terms (EULAs)? What makes the GPL any different, except that it grants more freedoms to recipients of such licensed software?

    Copyright is copyright, plain and simple. One who owns the copyright of a work may choose desired and legal means of redistribution for such work. There is no mandate by law on how copyright should be exercised. Whether GPL or not, this is the free market. The truth about free market capitalism is that no one is guaranteed success just because one wants to do someone a certain way. Capitalism is competing for what the customer wants; and if the customer wants free [as in freedom] software, then Mr. Wallace needs to come up with something better.

    To me, this is like a politician complaining that the U.S. Constitution artificially limits his "freedom" to legally compete with the rights of other people. Pure baloney.

    ---
    The DMCA is a blueprint for turning business models into law!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Did I miss something?
    Authored by: rand on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 10:00 AM EDT
    With all the "15 USC"s being tossed around, did Wallace really forget
    to cite the law he thinks is being broken?

    It seems he just points to the sections that establish venue, jursidiction, and
    standing to _pursue_ injunctive relief.

    ---
    The wise man is not embarrassed or angered by lies, only disappointed. (IANAL
    and so forth and so on)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Dear PJ [redux],
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 10:27 AM EDT
    I come to this web site for [x]. Every time you [y], you lose all credibility.
    Please, stop it!

    Thank you,

    Anonymous Troll

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Dear PJ [redux], - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 05:39 PM EDT
    Ironic implications of Wallace's lawsuit
    Authored by: blang on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 10:43 AM EDT
    But seriously, if Wallace were to succeed in his suit against FSF, the
    implications would be quite ironic, especially for an outfit like sys-con.

    For example, the courts would have to find that copyright holders should have no
    control over how their works are being published.

    That means, on the very day that Wallace trumphantly wins, I could:

    1: mirror all of sys-con sites.
    2: manipulate search engines to drive the traffic towards my site instead of
    syscon's site.
    3: Have an engine strip out anything that would violate trademarks, to prevent
    any legal repercussions.
    4: put up my own banner ads
    5: collect the money

    Rinse and repeat. Hmmm... how about Forbes, Reuters, AP, Yankee group, ZDnet...
    Teh sky is the limit, I'd be rolling in dough. And eating O'Gara's lunch, dinner
    and breakfast.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Okay.......
    Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 10:47 AM EDT
    How is the FSF the correct defendant here? Yes, they created the license, but
    they don't own the bulk of the copyrights protected by the license. Software
    developers choose to implement the GPL, they don't sell their wares to the FSF
    so the FSF can then license software.

    Even *if* a court would rule the GPL as potentially invalid (which is
    laughable), what exactly does Wallace think the FSF can do about it's use? To
    put a stop to what he claims is causing him harm, he would have to sue everyone
    who has licensed software underl the GPL! A reverse class action lawsuit?

    This smacks of a publicity stunt.

    -pooky

    ---
    Many Bothans died to bring us this information.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 11:00 AM EDT
    Santayana said "Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to
    repeat it." McCarthy was absurd but he remains important not least because
    he shows how Sen. Frist and Representative DeLay are a threat to international
    security with their more sophisticated techniques.

    Stalin himself is another wonderful example of the "Shoot everyone who
    isn't useful to you" school of government. When he died Picasso, who was a
    communist, did a memorial portrait of him, for which he was expelled from the
    Party.

    It's easy and fun to be cynical. For example, I consistently maintain that --
    regardless of what anyone else is doing here and I certainly don't speak for
    them at all -- the reason I follow the case is that I have prejudged it and want
    to reinforce my biases. There are and should be limits to our informality. PJ
    is certainly entitled to say what she wants. If she wants to vent, that should
    be her prerogative too. I still am surprised by how little critical thinking
    goes on on the other side: I find it fascinating so many self-styled opponents
    of "secular humanism" appropriate its tools very well, so I see that
    as a potential problem here, but I'll read it and be grateful Groklaw is up.

    Still, asking us to simplify arguments won't work. There are so many nuances in
    what has gone on before, that you should make some effort to learn about how
    McCarthy charged the State Department and the Army were full of Communists, and
    how his lawyer Roy Cohn was accused of seeking favors for a serviceman he was
    supposedly in love with.
    --jplatt39 (I can't tell if I'm logged in or not. Sorry.)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Oops - Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 11:36 AM EDT
    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 11:15 AM EDT
    MOG claims that the GPL does not stand up in court? SCO, after months of
    asserting that the GPL was null, void and unenforceable, did a 180 and claimed
    that it had complied with the terms of the GPL in response to IBM's PSJ that
    SCOG had violated IBM's copyrights by simultaneously distributing Linux and
    rejecting the GPL. Would SCOG have reacted as it did if the GPL was really null,
    void, unenforceable and unconstitutional?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A simple what if question...
    Authored by: James Wells on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 11:59 AM EDT
    Greetings,

    Before I pose the question, please understand IANAL, I have studied a bit of
    law, but that was criminal law and was over 20 years ago. My question is not
    intended as a troll or to start a flamefest, instead it is meant as a simple
    what-if. With that said, on to the question.

    <b>What would be the real impact, not counting appeals of course, if Mr
    Wallace were to win this case?</b>

    As I understand it, the only thing that could happen would be that FSF / GNU
    would be prohibited from further developing the GPL, but there would be no other
    impact.

    I can't really see how the court could legally stop me from distributing code
    that I write with any license I choose to use, so long as said code does not
    violate anyone else's rights.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mo' MOG Mistakes & Larry Rosen on Daniel Wallace's Anti-GPL Lawsuit: "It's Bunk."
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 12:03 PM EDT
    PJ... there is something I have to admit here...

    I sold my used car for far less than the Kelly Blue Book value... should I fear
    that the used car dealer down the street is going to sue me... after all, I'm
    likely to do it with my next car!!!

    I must be price fixing like crazy since I even gave one of my cars to my
    brother...

    and I gave "gifts" to people at the office christmas party!!!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Ah-HA!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:15 PM EDT
      • Ah-HA!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:30 PM EDT
    The state of Maine and the FSF moving
    Authored by: dyfet on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 01:52 PM EDT
    Curiously, as it happens, the FSF is actually moving this week, though not to another state :). They are just changing offices, from Templeton Place to Franklin street.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell buys Commerce One's e-commerce patents to defend FOSS
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 03:49 PM EDT
    It has been revealed that Novell picked up 39 important business-to-business electronic commerce and Web services patents from bankrupt Commerce One recently, and the company has declared its intention to use them to protect its open-source offerings.

    The sale of Commerce One Inc.'s 39 Web services patents went to a mysterious high bidder, JGR Acquisition Inc., for $15.5 million, in a December auction at the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.

    Rest is here on E-Week.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Copyright and Restraint of Trade Limitations to Ownership Rights
    Authored by: Dave23 on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:54 PM EDT
    First, it fascinates me that news of this particular lawsuit has generated so much interest. A real hot issue, it seems. Frankly, I figured this would be one of the possible paths the anti-GPL-ites might take in attempting to destroy the GPL as a viable license mechanism. (As I see it, the others are (1) attempts to suborn authors or their heirs into granting permissions through GPL-incompatible licenses, and (2) the patent shenanigans folks are already quite aware of.) I do sense a bit of psychological "projection" by the promoters of this anti-GPL argument, which does give me some cynical amusement. And of course this suit is a political attack on co-operative coding from the traditional software rentiers, as well.

    I am not a lawyer; but from what I've seen, the document seems to be rather poorly written and contains quite a number of inaccuracies, so I can believe it is a pro se effort by a non-lawyer. This business has been covered elsewhere. From my take on it, the direction of the suit is quite likely the largest needle with the largest eye that the anti-GPLI-ites could find to try to squeeze the anti-GPL elephant through.

    The suit certainly has the "right number of little holes": terms like "restraint of trade," "contract of adhesion," "price-fixing" and so forth certainly do get mentioned — and it is almost too bad that there isn't any real narrative of injustice (aka "sob story") to go along with it. The requested redress is for an injunction — which puts it firmly on the Equity side of the court (judge only; no trial by jury here!). However, due to large numbers of structural defects already pointed out, it seems highly likely the suit will be rejected for something other than any substantive legal question.

    In a sense, that's too bad. Contrary to some assertions, the rights of copyright ownership are indeed not unlimited, and the forms of allowable restrictions to permissions are not unlimited either. It is just that what is allowable or not is often not clear. Anti-trust limits can be opaque (at least to me), and I'd like to see in cogent writing what distinguishes (say) a combination of authors who have entered into a covenant (or what ever you wish to call a network of interlocking GPL-like permissions), and a (large) firm which supplies a very unique product (say an IBM computer in the 1950s or 1960s) that can be rented only and an equivalent cannot be got from a competing supplier.

    Unfortunately, because it won't get far on procedural grounds, I don't think this suit will be the place of such illumination. But if against all odds this suit does "grow legs," the community should follow it carefully and fully, and not ignore it. I don't think that the effort is do a "Samson" and try to make the GPL void in its entirety; but to have the restrictive provisions, particularly those involving derivative works, ruled an unenforceable adhesion — or alternatively, to force FSF (as the defendant) to provide an alternate license where unlimited derivative rights may be obtained for a sum of money.

    To conclude: I think there is an issue here (judging from the response to this post so far, many others think so, too) and eventually someone clever will test it — though probably not in this suit.

    ---
    Gawker

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    PJ,Just a comment
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 04 2005 @ 09:18 AM EDT
    I feel that you stop portraying yourself as the poor innocent victim of a
    conspiracy. You're taking the fight to them, you're standing up and trying to
    show people the truth about the shills, liars and con artists. For that, you
    should be very proud.

    But you should expect them to fight back. And when they do, you shouldn't play
    the part of the poor happless victim being beaten to death. On a battlefield,
    when one gets shot at, one should not start running around crying
    "foul!".

    Have you ever stopped to wonder that maybe they're not part of a coordinated
    attack or a conspiracy, but just fighting back because you went/go after each
    and everyone of them individually? There's an old chines proverb that goes
    "Act rather then act-out".

    Just a thought. (that's probably just going to end up the same as all my other
    posts)

    Have a nice day.
    sigh.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Love Danny's work!
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 04 2005 @ 10:23 PM EDT
    This is brilliant! The man himself is going to pay for final legal verification
    of the GPL.

    Love your work Danny! Go get them tiger!

    BTW, I would really like to see the computer programs that Danny "couldn't
    sell" because of this terrible GPL price fixing. What do we have here -
    another Windows maybe? Or Oracle? I'm guessing it's something really
    "revolutionary" ;-)

    [ Reply to This | # ]
    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )     		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
    Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
    News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
    Powered By GeekLog
    Created this page in 0.09 seconds