GPL Sued For "Software Price Fixing"

Linux Business News ^ | 30 April 2005 | Maureen O'Gara

[ShadowAce]

[ShadowAce]

From Groklaw (Larry is Larry Rosen and Maureen O'Gara is the author of the above work):

Here's Larry's comment on her latest piece of work:

Oy vey!

Maureen O'Gara continues to misquote my comments about the GPL in order to fuel her personal vendetta about that license. I have never disputed the GPL's legitimacy or its enforceability as a copyright license.

Many individuals and companies have proposed other licenses they prefer to the GPL for a variety of reasons that I summarize in my book. But to suggest that this means the GPL is invalid, or to propose, as "Groklaw gadfly" Daniel Wallace now apparently does, that the license creates "a restraint of trade," is to misrepresent the legal and business situations that drive license diversity. The GPL is chosen, not forced.

As to Wallace's lawsuit, it's bunk. The conscious effort of the free software community to deliver "free" software shouldn't in any way impede Mr. Wallace's efforts to sell his at a higher price, assuming his software is better. What he really wants, it appears, is the opportunity to sell derivative works of *my* software without paying *my* price--a deal the law doesn't require me to give him.

[Paul C. Jesup]

As to Wallace's lawsuit, it's bunk. The conscious effort of the free software community to deliver "free" software shouldn't in any way impede Mr. Wallace's efforts to sell his at a higher price, assuming his software is better. What he really wants, it appears, is the opportunity to sell derivative works of *my* software without paying *my* price--a deal the law doesn't require me to give him.

Bump.

[eno_]

Now we know who we can kick around when we don't have Darl McBride to kick around anymore.

[B Knotts]

Just one problem: the GPL doesn't set or restrain prices.

[ShadowAce]

Now we know who we can kick around when we don't have Darl McBride to kick around anymore.

Well, both Maureen O'Gara and Linux Business Week are anti-linux, pretending to be covering Linux news for the Linux community. Both of them are good sources for "news" that generally shows Linux in a bad light.

[antiRepublicrat]

The only known time the GPL has been hauled into an American court was in 2001-2002 during a contract flap between MySQL AB

That's because people usually settle, because they are clear-cut cases of copyright infringement. Don't like the GPL? Then don't accept it. You're still free to use the software.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You can sell open source software for any price you can get someone to pay, you just have to include the source code with your distribution.

[N3WBI3]

Wow! what a loaded article. Its sad, this might be an interesting case no matter which way it goes but talk about writing an editoral when real journalism would have been nice.

Whenever someone plays the Linux keeps me from making software I point at Oracle, and BEA who make closed source commercial software (that runs on Linux) I would buy in a second. Then I point at RaidZone, and Linksys (hardware vendors) who might not exist without the GPL..

[N3WBI3]

Yes but the second yu do sell something that person can then give it away, the seller effectively has no rights (look at CentOS)

[rdb3]

Well, both Maureen O'Gara and Linux Business Week are anti-linux, pretending to be covering Linux news for the Linux community. Both of them are good sources for "news" that generally shows Linux in a bad light.

Exactly. Talk about false advertising.

[KarlInOhio]

I have some problems with the GPL, mainly because it doesn't seem to handle small, embedded computers where dynamic linking isn't an option so therefore I can't build the firewall between the GPL section and my section. I have no problem with publishing my changes to a library licensed under GPL, I just don't want the GPL to force me to publish my personal program. I've avoided some GPL programs that would be perfect solutions to problems I've had for that reason.

That being said, if I write a program and you want to use it, we can negotiate the terms of the licensing. I can charge you money up front. I can charge you per copy you distribute. I can make you stand on your head and sing the Argentine national anthem to use my program. You have the option of saying "That's just silly. I'll write something myself instead." I can also make you publish any changes to the program and prevent you from saying that a one line change makes the whole thing yours, along with making you pass those licensing terms to anyone else who you allow to use the program. If you don't like those terms, just don't use my program. Don't agree to my terms and then later cry that you don't think that my terms were fair.

[vbmoneyspender]

Are you saying that if you create your own software with your own code, that the GPL allows buyers to give it away for free? That's going to be news to a whole lot of software companies in this country.

[B Knotts]

Presumably, the seller is the one licensing his software under the GPL. So, he obviously wants it that way.

The only "seller" the GPL hurts is someone who wishes to take someone else's source code, compile it, and sell the result as proprietary.

[Petronski]

The pro se suit, filed by physicist, computer programmer and Groklaw gadfly Daniel Wallace, charges that the GPL “contract licensing scheme” artificially fixes software prices.

And, like most pro se complaints, it's 1/3 fact, 1/3 law, and 1/3 amateur goofiness.

[N3WBI3]

No thats not at all what I am saying, somebody posted that the GPL lets you charge whatever you want and while that is true its a half truth. Redhat charges me for their software but I can turn around and give it away (in source form) to everyone I know. Look at CentOS! is RHEL built from source and the yum repositories are nothing but rhn updates built from source.

Maybe you should read my post and the one I was responding to before getting sarcastic on me..

[N3WBI3]

Presumably, the seller is the one licensing his software under the GPL. So, he obviously wants it that way.

I am not saying thats not true what I am saying is we should avoid half truths that make us as bad as the shill that wrote this 'article' of trash...

[ShadowAce]

Redhat charges me for their software but I can turn around and give it away (in source form) to everyone I know.

That's only partially correct as well. Red Hat charges for support as well as software. Also, CentOS does not include some proprietary code and utilities that RHEL comes with.

You can turn around and give away the GPL'ed porttion of RHEL--but not the proprietary part of it.

[vbmoneyspender]

I don't understand your complaint that when you use someone else's software, they get to dictate how you use it. Or is it a complaint?