On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:32:22 -0600, Erik FunkenLawyer wrote:
> What's odd is that the appleas court appears
> to have completely misunderstood the GPL.
> From the ruling:
The bit you left out :)
"People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they
come under the same license terms as the original work."
> "Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and
> revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any
> creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the
> software or allow any successor to charge."
You can charge for distributing the software, it's in the GPL.
"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." http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
"Authors who distribute their works under this license .. authorize
not only copying but also .. prohibits charging for the derivative
work"
"unless a firm with market power can increase its profits by
curtailing output, the practice is lawful under the Rule of Reason).
The GPL and open-source software have nothing to fear from the
antitrust laws"
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceAppealRejected.pdf
the ever changing fuddie GPL fud:
v5.0 The Judge misunderstood the GPL, fuddie
V4.0 It wouldn't matter if the GPL were valid or not, fuddie
V3.0 The argument is whether a company is in violation of the GPL, not
whether the GPL itslef is valid, fuddie
V2.0 The definition of "distribute" would have to be tested in a court
of law, fuddie
"This License applies to any program .. saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License.", GPL
v1.0 It's never been tested in court, fuddie
"That is because OS is an ally to those that would be king. If you
want the help of those that can put you into power, you don't piss
them off", Erik Fuunkenbusch May 20 2002
Spoken like a true neo fachist. Now lets all stand and sing to der
Fatherland .. Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der
Welt ...
|
|
