Re: Final text of GPL v3
Chris Waters writes:
> All free licenses, and especially all copyleft licenses, require the
> waiver of certain legal rights (such as the right to sue for copyright
> infringement).
Explain, please. There have been a number of copyright complaints
filed (in Germany and the US) over GPLed software. The GPL's copyleft
nature did not bar those lawsuits. I am not aware of any that went to
trial in the US, but at least one German lawsuit alleging GPL
violations was decided[1] for the licensor, and other cases (in both
countries) have settled with the defendant agreeing to comply with the
GPL.
[1]- http://www.gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
> The requirement in copyleft to provide source code can
> also be seen as a fee--in fact, this has been cited as a reason for
> considering the GPLv2 valid, enforcible and non- discriminatory with
> respect to anti-trust law.
That unattributed "has been cited" reads like a poor appeal to an
indefinite authority. Daniel Wallace's failed anti-trust lawsuit
_cited_ such provisions as reasons to consider the GPLv2 invalid,
unenforceable and an unlawful conspiracy with respect to anti-trust
law. We can see how far making that claim got him.
(Incidentally, neither the district court's ruling[2] to dismiss
Wallace's complaint, nor the appeals court's order[3] upholding
dismissal, treat the requirement to provide source code as a fee. To
the contrary, their orders seem to view it primarily as a benefit to
the end user and to the software community.
[2]- http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf
[3]- http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf
)
While there is a fairly broad range of what people on this list think
is a "fee", in the end, providing source code for software that one
distributes has never been considered a fee. Giving up tangible
property, actions unrelated to software (such as petting a cat) and
intellectual property unrelated to the software in question (such as
over-broad patent defense clauses) have been considered fees.
Concessions necessary to exercise software freedoms have not.
Michael Poole
Reply to: