Talk:Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp.

Wallace's credentials
Surely it must be a mistake that this Daniel Wallace is described as a professor, right? The article says that he calls himself a BS in physics, so in other words his highest level of education is the light version of an undergraduate degree. Maybe someone got him confused with one of his namesakes, the theology professor in Dallas and the professor of medicine at UCLA? But if I'm wrong, and this Daniel Wallace really is a professor, I think it would be good if the article stated what chair he holds at what department and university. Carl T 09:55, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)


 * That bit about his degree being a BS was added by 4.247.51.4, who also added such useful comments like "he is well-known for attacking the GPL" and (paraphrased) "he is wrong." It's been hard to expand this article with information for two reasons:  One, there are also two other professors and an american author by that name, meaning Google isn't useful; and two, most sites covering the lawsuit (which is why he's notable) are sites that are attacking him, and not providing factual data.  Almafeta 19:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, there would need to be some justification for including him in the Category:American entrepreneurs, as there really isn't anything at all about any entrepreneurial business ventures he has engaged in. There would need to be some noteworthy business venture before including him in this I would think. --Micah Hainline 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If somebody wants to research this go get the court documents and find out his mailing address from them and work backwards from there. Knowing something about the fellow would make the article more useful.  BillMcGonigle 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning!
This article is subject to frequent vandalism. Due to Wikipedia being pro-open source, and the efforts of sites like Groklaw to portray Daniel Wallace as the open-source antichrist, WP:NPOV may be impossible here. However, it should at least be attempted.

When the article is edited, compare the versions to see:
 * What was removed? If anything was removed, was there a strongly compelling reason to remove it from the article?  (For example, comparisons of his lawsuit to an extremely similar lawsuit that was successful, but against the 'evil' Microsoft, were removed.)
 * Was the added content somehow related to Daniel Wallace and/or the lawsuit, or was it open-source boosterism? (For example, stating that 'he is wrong' because 'all you have to do is change how you do business' says absolutely nothing about what the lawsuit is about or who Daniel Wallace is.)
 * Were the changes made intended to attack him without technically being wrong? (For example, changing 'is a professor' to 'claims to be a professor' is not technically wrong, but uses the connotation of the phrase 'claims to be' to give a negative slant to the article.)

Be careful when expanding this article. Don't let the claims of yellow journalism taint this article -- let's keep Wikipedia reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Almafeta 20:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Aren't phrases like "Due to Wikipedia being pro-open source, and the efforts of sites like Groklaw to portray Daniel Wallace as the open-source antichrist, [...]" biased? Rajiv Varma 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the bogus vandalism warning
I bothered to check. It's a bit late to say so, but in it's entire history to date this article has had exactly ONE edit that would qualify as vandalism. As per wiki guidelines, I'm not counting blatant POV/yellow journalism/weasel words edits of course (like the one from Almafeta accusing open source supporters of libelling poor little Danny Wallace). I've seen these sorts of 'OMG Open Source terrorists sending out death threats and libelling people' smears before, but never one that had a factual allegation that was quite so trivial to prove false. Take Almafeta with a pinch of salt. -- Aim Here 00:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Background
Maybe it would be good idea to write what company is he working, what are his background motives? He didn't just wake up one day and decided to sue FSF and everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.186.194 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

GPL validation
IMHO, Daniel Wallace is represented from FSF(?), IBM, Novell, and Red Hat, which try to prove validity GPL using "the rule of contraries". This practice are commonly used in countries, where judgement based on "precedents" (ex. USA). In other countries there is no sense (ex. Russia). --MaratIK 06:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

motivations?
what is wallace motivations anyway?? - --193.136.128.14 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats what I'm wondering too. Harrisonmetz 14:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe he secretly works for Microsoft? :-P --Explodicle 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this could use more background, exactly what was Mr. Wallace's standing to bring the suit? Did he work for a software company or was he just some crank?  does anybody know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsonitsac (talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe he just wanted some money out of the insane American tort law system. --62.47.148.194 23:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay to answer some questions - Wallace's motivations are probably ideological in nature. He didn't ask for money, AFAIK, but for the court to declare the GPL invalid. He doesn't, AFAIK, work for a software company. To gain standing to sue, he did laughably pretend to be making a BSD-based operating system, called SCI-BSD, "The Command Line based BSD operating system", which had a lurid single-page "Coming soon"-in-red-text-on-green-background website at sci-bsd.com (it's now been more or less blanked). I don't recall Wallace's site being publicised before one of the iterations of his complaint was thrown out for lack of standing, although the domain name had been bought beforehand. And yes, he represented himself. I'm not sure if any of this (other than his pro se-ness) is verifiable enough to be placed in the article. --Aim Here 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

New case
New case to be added:


 * http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.96.134 (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Represented self?
Is it true that Mr. Wallace represented himself in the lawsuits? If that is the case it might be worthwhile to point that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.187.187.226 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Uncited references"
These were listed as "Uncited references".

If they're uncited, then it's hard to see what they're doing in the article and in what way they can be regarded as "references". I've moved them here. If they're relevant to the case, of course they can be cited in support of appropriate factual statements in the article. --Tony Sidaway 07:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The decision to grant the dismissal.
 * The IBM, Novell and Red Hat dismissal.
 * The Seventh Circuit appeal ruling
 * The Seventh Circuit appeal ruling

More of the same, filed under "External links";


 * Free Software Foundation's Motion to Dismiss and article on Groklaw, with documents
 * Wallace Responds to FSF Motion to Dismiss/Stay Briefing on his Summary Judgment motion on Groklaw, with documents
 * Wallace Files Against IBM, Novell and Red Hat article on Groklaw, with documents
 * The legal documents in the Wallace v. Free Software Foundation case, on Tuxrocks
 * The legal documents in the Wallace v. IBM, Red Hat, and Novell case, on Tuxrocks
 * Wallace's second attempt dismissed
 * (98.5 KiB)
 * How GPL fits in with the future of antitrust regulation
 * How GPL fits in with the future of antitrust regulation

Please do restore these links where appropriate, but doing so outwith the general commentary is unhelpful and prejudicial. --Tony Sidaway 07:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)