Slashdot Mirror
Perens Counters Claim of GPL Legal Risk
Microsoft Delenda Est writes "After ACT, a Microsoft front group, started claiming that the GPLv3 was legally 'risky' and could give rise to anti-trust liability, eWeek has published a rebuttal by Bruce Perens. Aside from the fact that IBM, HP, Red Hat, and a couple dozen corporate lawyers are watching over the creation of the GPLv3, there is already precedent that shows the GPL is unlikely to give rise to any significant liability — Daniel Wallace v. FSF. In that case, pro se litigant Daniel Wallace was all but laughed out of the courtroom for alleging the GPLv2 violates anti-trust law, and the GPLv3 clauses in question are simply clarifications and extensions of clauses in the GPLv2. Presumably, that is why the ACT neglected to cite any precedent substantiating their allegations."
From your post it's clear that you aspire to be both a lawyer and a comedian. And while I concede that as a lawyer you make a good comedian, no one will be laughing if this license is finalized without addressing some of the legal issues Wilder outlined.
Maybe you should apply your comic timing to chiding those dozen lawyers to get this agreement right, while there is still time. ACT provided you with some free-to-you legal analysis of the GPLv3 from a very well respected IP lawyer, and you are busy calling him names instead of taking advantage of it? Brilliant idea!
You claim to be a "leader" of the Open Source community, perhaps you should start acting like one.
Oh, and Wilder ALSO has an Engineering degree, so it looks like he has sees your bid, and raises you one degree.
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
Because the FUD campaign regarding the BSD license in the mid to late 90's was capitalized on and echoed by the Linux community to drive 'the market' (as you term it) toward Linux.
Not the whole story, but a component of it. And it *was* a FUD campaign in all it's glory.