[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference [OT]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> The gang should better stop misstating the copyright act, to begin with.
> But actually it doesn't really matter given that Wallace is going to put
> the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain pretty soon anyway
> (antitrust violation -> copyright misuse -> quasi public domain/copyright
> impotence). http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf

(first, obligatory IANAL)

I think this is unlikely, given that the plaintiff's claim there is
based on a false assertion.  Quoted from your cited document, page 4:

[begin quote]

The GPL term 2(b) also fixes the maximum price "at no charge" for the
market value of a derivative or collective computer program thus created
by the pooled code.  All future third parties who accept the GPL
copyright license must distribute their collaborative creations at no

[end quote]

This is not true.  2(b) says that you must *license* work you derive
from GPL'ed material and distribute for free, but section 1 specifically
says "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
fee."  There is no limit specified on the fee that may be charged.

Those interested in this case may note that this is the plaintiff's
*fourth* amendment of his original complaint; the judge dismissed his
third amended complaint without prejudice here:

Some more references are available from Wikipedia:

Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu>   Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/    Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751                 Princeton, NJ 08544

Reply to: