[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;) |
Date: |
Fri, 19 May 2006 09:57:10 +0200 |
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > And once again you conflate the market under attack by the copyleft
> > conspiracy with its ancillary markets.
>
> Nothing but the "ancillary market" is relevant here.
Only to you and other GNUtians. Wallace's case is not about ancillary
markets.
> We are talking
> about the business of selling operating systems, not of selling labor.
Wallace is talking about selling Intellectual Property.
> Wallace is free to sell his labor to whatever operating system vendor
> wants to buy it.
Sure he is free. But he wants to become a vendor of his SciBSD
operating system and use some IP value based business model.
> But that's not what he wants. He purports to want
> to sell operating system copies himself, and exactly that is what you
> call "ancillary market".
You again attempt to conflate. Think of it this way: Red Hat doesn't
sell operating system copies. Go try to buy a used one (archaic
pre-"subscription model" copies don't count).
>
> > Is it really that hard to grasp that those ancillary markets will
> > function in exactly the same way (if not better) when copyleft is
> > outlawed and Linux becomes non- copyleft free software?
>
> You can't outlaw copyleft since it is simply a normal use of a
> creator's copyright.
It's far from normal.
> And those ancillary markets work better with
> copyleft: exactly that is the problem for Wallace: he can't sell his
> personal reinvention of the wheel because the market already has the
> means to supply better ones on a sustainable basis.
Nonsense. Wallace case is not about ancillary markets to begin with,
and his reuse of BSD and alike licensed code in SciBSD is hardly
reinvention.
regards,
alexander.
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), (continued)
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Richard Tobin, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/18
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;),
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/19
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/19
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/19
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/19
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/19
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), David Kastrup, 2006/05/20
- Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;), Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/20