encforceability of Open Source Licences (Re: (OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory)

[Alexander Terekhov]

On Feb 11, 2008 4:10 PM, Michael Poole <mdpoole at troilus.org> wrote:
[...]
> The topic is of interest and import.  Frivolous legal theories are

I've referred to the report published by copyright.gov and also some caselaw.

> not.  If the sheer number of his posts did not alert you, Alexander
> Terekhov has little going for him except endurance.  Many of us who
> have been around have already argued with him, made no headway, and
> given up on any threads -- or even mailing lists -- where he is a

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00163.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html

> chronic poster.  I am quite comfortable calling him a troll and
> leaving it at that; his interpretation of many legal doctrines is so
> much at odds with the rest of the free and open source communities
> that only rather specific (and so far lacking) court rulings are
> likely to change minds.
>
> Even that is debatable, though: Terekhov backed Daniel Wallace from
> the early days of Wallace's anti-GPL lawsuits.  He seemed to think[1]
> -- even after several losses -- that Wallace was really right.  No
> word on whether he's changed his mind since[2].

I. Have. Not. Changed. My. Mind.

>
> [1]- http://www.archivum.info/gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org/2006-06/msg00156.html
> [2]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_versus_International_Business_Machines_et_al

One just needs to take a quick look at Wallace claim

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace-case.htm
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace-case2.htm

versus Easterbrook's ruling including his rather curios view on the
GPL (on one hand equating it to public domain and on the other hand
postulating that nobody, not even original licensors, can charge),
"flourishing competition" in the OS market, and "price-fixing" being
nothing more than an attempt to monopolize and establish monopoly
pricing, to come to the same conclusion as I've done.

regards,
alexander.

--
"Notwithstanding Jacobsen's confused discussion of unilateral
contracts, bilateral contracts, implied licenses, "licenses to the
world" and "bare" licenses in his Appellant's Brief, the issue at hand
is fairly simple."

 -- Brief of Appellees (CAFC 2008-1001).