Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()
On 5/9/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I have to admit it didn't occur to me that anyone might think my
> > opinion represented an opposite consensus. More widely recognized
> > debian-legal personages such as Raul and Andrew seem to think I'm an
> > idiot or a troll, and to have no particular compunction about telling
> > d-d so. (For the record, I am neither, thank you very much.)
>
> I apologize for any statements of mine where my frustration at
> the arguments you were presenting came across as negative
> characterization of you as a person.
Apology accepted. That's most courteous of you, and I in turn
apologize for any sarcasm or mockery that I have directed at you
personally.
> > To whom it may concern: my debian-legal and debian-devel postings on
> > the topic of the GPL are Copyright (C) Michael K. Edwards 2004, 2005
> > (as applicable), All Rights Reserved, and you plagiarize them at your
> > peril. I am not a lawyer or legally qualified to any degree in any
> > jurisdiction, and everything I say is at least a little bit wrong.
> > Any use you make of evidence I cite, or of the ideas contained in an
> > argument I make, is without my consent or personal involvement and at
> > your own risk unless you can exhibit a signed, notarized written
> > agreement to the contrary.
>
> I'm going to ignore that.
Wasn't meant for you or for any debian-legal regular. Meant for
Daniel Wallace's attorney, in case he's lurking. Oh yeah, he filed
pro se. Did I mention that, while you are your own best legal
researcher, a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client?
> As I read it, what you've said here is that you'll take legal action
> against people who respond to your email messages in a fashion
> you don't approve of. If you have not intention of participating in
> this community and actively wish it harm, we would have to
> configure our email servers to prevent you from sending messages
> to them, and we might have to get a legal injunction against you
> in the state of your residence barring you from posting to these
> forums.
Sorry, maybe I was a little cryptic there. The original "news" story
by one Maureen O'Gara seems to have been slashdotted but you may be
able to find a usable amount of information by following
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/05/02/229234.shtml and Googling around.
A personage by the name Daniel Wallace, apparently notorious to some,
has apparently sued the FSF in a Federal court in Indiana, alleging
that the GPL is a price-fixing scheme under the Clayton Act. My
disclaimerant was aimed at those two individuals plus any Does and
Roes in their crowd in case they're following the bouncing ball on
d-l.
I have done little further research on this suit yet but the tripe
that passes for online journalism (not that most print sources are
much better) does not indicate where Mr. Wallace thinks he is getting
his arguments. I bloody well hope he doesn't think he can use my
writing (such as it is) for his complaint. Not that I think anyone
who knows better would mistake it for competent legal research --
everything I know about the law was implanted in my brain by space
aliens with the connivance of the neighbor's cat -- but pick any two
of the cases I've cited in the last six months and Google them in one
query (try "specht techplosion"), and the odds are pretty high that
one of these d-l threads is the first hit.
> Intent matters, to the law.
Couldn't agree with you more. My intent is not to harm Debian or the
FSF or any of the individuals involved in either. Very much the
contrary; I wouldn't even rag on Professor Moglen's public position
(appalled by it as I am) if I didn't think it might save him grief to
hear it from a fellow traveler with no particular legal status instead
of a BigNastySoftCorp thug-at-law.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: