Subject: RE: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
From: Walter van Holst <w.van.holst@mitopics.nl>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:14:19 +0200

 Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:14:19 +0200
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhov@gmail.com]
> Verzonden: donderdag 2 augustus 2007 19:40
> Onderwerp: Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review

> (consider that over time, under "bazaar model" with long
> chain of derivation in derivative works and additions to
> collective works by different authors, GPL'd IP becomes
> practically locked within the GPL pool with no practical way
> to obtain rights to it under terms other than the GPL)

And what would the  legal  problem be with that? Or would you suggest some essential
facilities alike doctrine to apply to GPL'ed code? I am not sure whether Richard Stallman,
Bill Gates or Larry Ellisson would approve of your line of thinking. And by the time
you might get Bill, Larry  and  Richard Stallman to agree together on disagreeing with
you, it might be recommended to consider the option of just being wrong.

> -----
> Contracts do not involve the same basic scope or impact as do
> property rights established directly by operation of common
> law or state statute.

- snip -

The fact that you can't create absolute rights (against the world) through contracts
alone does not imply that any similar relative rights (between parties) cannot be created
either. You are referring to proCD versus Zeidenberg, I can't find anything in that
decision that you can't expand property rights through contractual rights between the
parties of that contract. Feel free to enlighten me though.

Regards,

 Walter