Re: Linuxsampler license
On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > GPL-incompatible
http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html
("We paid the FSF to have them provide us these answers. So these
answers are verified correct by people like FSF lawyer and law
professor Eben Moglen.")
----
Question: Can someone for example distribute
1. GStreamer, the LGPL library
2. Totem, a GPL playback application
3. The binary-only Sorenson decoder
together in one distribution/operating system ? If not, what needs to
be changed to make this possible ?
Answer: This would be a problem, because the GStreamer and Totem
licenses would forbid it. In order to link GStreamer to Totem,
you need to use section 3 of the LGPL to convert GStreamer to GPL.
----
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
> >>>> words-to-avoid
>
> http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-17.pdf
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consumer
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
>
> Did I miss something (more words-to-avoid)?
"The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example of a
computer program that has been developed using the free software model, and
is licensed pursuant to the GPL."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, well, well. See above.
Now, (also quoting FSF's brief)
"See LucasArts Entertainment Company vs. Humongous Entertainment
Company against licensee who claimed that license provision
regulating resale prices for derivative works violated the Sherman Act)."
Does anyone have a link? All I could find is this:
----
In the intellectual property context, however, one federal court held
that the Cartwright Act did not prohibit, under the per se rule or
otherwise, a provision in a software licensing agreement which
prohibited the licensee from selling the licensed program at less than
a certain price to anyone other than the licensor. LucasArts
Entertainment Co. v. Humongous Entertainment Co., 870 F. Supp. 285
(N.D. Cal. 1993). The court relied on a federal decision, United
States v. General Electric, 272 U.S. 476 (1926), which held that
patent owners had the power to restrict prices at which licensees
sold. Although the General Electric case has not been overruled, its
continuing validity is questionable, as the United States Supreme
Court has twice split four to four on whether to overrule it and the
federal enforcement authorities decline to follow it.
----
And
----
The GE ruling on price-fixing has been heavily qualified but never
overruled. Any deviation from the GE-Westinghouse single-
manufacturing-licensee paradigm is virtually certain to be held
an antitrust violation (and therefore misuse as well). Thus, cross-
licenses with price restrictions are illegal. So, too, are licenses to
more than one licensee, which, in effect, put together a price-fixing
combination among licensees. The Supreme Court has twice divided 4-4
on whether to overrule GE. United States v. Line Material Co., 333
U.S. 287 (1948); United States v. Huck Mfg. Co., 382 U.S. 197 (1965).
The Antitrust Division has for years searched for a vehicle to
overturn GE but has never succeeded in getting a candidate to hold
still long enough to grab it. See ABA, Antitrust Law Developments
3d 822 & nn. 167-68.
----
I gather that Wallace might be DOJ's secret agent... ;-)
regards,
alexander.
Reply to: