Re: GNU FUD

[David Kastrup]

rjack <rjack@com> writes:

> The holding in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control
> Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) unequivocally
> demonstrates that a copyright license may not control source code
> that implements a step in a process patent under U.S. law.

You mean that this is a Supreme Court decision based solely on the
Berne convention and thus forms an unequivocal standard of both
national and international law?

Did not think so.

> The above result may not be true in non-U.S. jurisdictions but the
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not that it would be true to a sufficiently reliable degree in
U.S. jurisdictions... 

> obvious deception by the vocal supporters of the Free Software
> Foundation concerning the GPL3 and U.S. patents destroys any
> credibility they might have when complaining about Microsoft's
> hegemony.

Wow.  Now you are losing it.  It has always been stated that the GPLv2
would already imply a patent license under U.S. law, but that it is
something which needs to be made explicit for the sake of both clarity
and international law.

Anyway, the obvious befuddlement you have about the license destroys
any credibility you might have when handing in your tax return
statements.  You don't see the connection?  Then we are already two.

> GPL supporters and not Microsoft are truly the culprits in the FUD
> wars concerning patents and computer programming. Their efforts
> amount to nothing more than one great SPAM conspiracy in the open
> source world.  Sadly, it amazing how many people like Bruce Perens
> spew GPL3 nonsense concerning patents.

You should wipe the foam off your mouth.  You don't even manage to
form complete sentences right now.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum