Re: the FSF's GPLv3 launch conference [OT]
On 1/5/06, Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu> wrote:
> 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.
It might sound false to you but only if you take it out of context
which is cost of intellectual property and not cost of media,
warranty, or whatnot.
To quote the FSF's own brief (#35):
"By facilitating the development and distribution of software to
consumers at no cost other than the cost of the media on which
it is distributed, the GNU General Public License ("GPL") ..."
violaties the antitrust laws. And even OSI knows it.
----
The general counsel for the Open Source Initiative acknowledges
in his recent treatise: "There is also a problem that may prevent
enforcement of the GPL's at no charge provision. It may be an
illegal restraint of trade in some countries. Ordinarily, companies
are allowed to set their own prices, and it is improper for a GPL
licensor to restrain that in anyway." L. Rosen, Open Source
Licensing 132 (2004),"
----
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
regards,
alexander.
Reply to: