David Kastrup wrote: [...] > 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > parties under the terms of this License. > > What about "distribute or publish" don't you understand?
Wallace: "The present case concerns a pooling agreement among individual copyright holders for naked price fixing of computer programs involving rights under 17 USC 106(1), 106(2) and 106(3)." Judge Tinder: http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-30.pdf "In the provision relevant here, the GPL directs users to cause any work that [they] distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. (GPL 3.) This language indicates that the GPL is typically entered into between licensees and licensors, with the intent of prohibiting licensees from charging a fee for use of certain computer software programs. This scheme, which involves an agreement among different levels of users within the same chain of distribution, is a vertical agreement. And as a vertical agreement, the GPL alone cannot form the basis of a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 22 (1997) (vertical maximum price fixing, like the majority of commercial arrangements subject to antitrust laws, should be evaluated under the rule of reason.). Therefore, the court must turn to whether Mr. Wallace has adequately alleged that the GPL violates the rule of reason." Can you read "prohibiting licensees from charging a fee" and "price fixing"? And, BTW, before his blackout regarding antitrust injury on the grounds of predatory pricing, Judge Tinder actually performed not that bad. "B. Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted. ... 2. Plaintiffs Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth a Violation of the Rule of Reason. ... The GPL allows free access to software programs, subject to some limitations. This does not mean that the GPL necessarily aids competition as contemplated by the Sherman Act, as FSF contends. Instead, it could be argued that by making software available to consumers free of charge through a licensing agreement, the GPL results in reduction in output . . . [and] deterioration in quality, United States v. Brown Univ., 5 F.3d 658, 668 (3d Cir. 1993), which could be harmful to consumers. By making certain software programs available to users at no charge, the GPL may be discouraging developers from creating new and better programs because they will not receive compensation for their work, thereby reducing the number of quality programs available to users. This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule of reason doctrine." regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
