Lawsuit Says GPL is a Price-Fixing Scheme 850
Soko writes "Yes, it's real. The crack team of Daniel Wallace and Maureen O'Gara have ganged up once again to protect their version of "The American Dream," he by filing a lawsuit in Indiana court saying the GPL is nothing more than a price fixing scheme designed to drive software vendors out of business, she by parroting the proprietary vendors' "The GPL kills business" mantra (as well as a few well placed insults at the free software community). I found the story on Groklaw - no links to Ms. O'Gara or Mr. Wallace from me. I'm still kind of dumbfounded at the audacity of Mr. Wallace, but wonder if he has an angle that might have a slim chance of prevailing." This Google search reveals some of Daniel Wallace's views on the GPL.
They took yer job! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They took yer job! (Score:5, Funny)
I am writing to express my outrage at the way your freedoms impose unfair limitations on my freedom to limit your freedoms.
Also it looks like you might be having more fun than me. You will be hearing from my lawyers!
Re:They took yer job! (Score:5, Funny)
ZERO!
Re:They took yer job! (Score:4, Funny)
They all got it wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously, it's so inept it fulfilling that end, that it can be mistaken for nearly anything.
Re:but you know it's true! (Score:4, Insightful)
GPL was created outside the idea of a "market", and its original focus was on individuals, and there right to code as a form of "libre" speech and expression - not as a product made by partnerships, proprietorships or corporations.
The GPL is good for capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, the GPL is good for capitalism. Capitalism is all about competition forcing companies to constantly improve their products, and competition from GPL software will force advancement at a much greater speed than it would be at otherwise.
Those who don't like it, are the lowest tier. They'll be the first driven out of business. Not because of the GPL per se, but because of their own incompetence and inability to adjust to new business reality. Incompetent companies going out of business is, and has always been, good for capitalism and good for consumers.
An intelligent company would look at the OSS movement and see what they can do to adjust to it. Fighting it won't help, the tighter they squeeze their grip, the more star systems will slip between their fingers..
Re:They took yer job! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah and we must be guilty of dumping goods and services in the market at below cost to take marketshare.
You dirty, dirty volunteers.
Re:They took yer job! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They took yer job! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, lets look at it:
-OSS: Its communism because everyone works on it for nothing! ner ner.
-Proprietary: Its communism because its all designed from the middle and given to the masses even though they may not like it and have no control of it. ner ner...
I am Australian but I have lived in the US for 6 months and I discovered that the US is unbelievably capitalist with a huge FEAR of anything socialist. Here in Oz, we have a mixed economy that is predominately market but has some socialist aspects such as unlimited welfare (the dole) and free health care (medicare). It think its a good balance.
Anyway, my point is that we should have a BALANCE of OSS and proprietary software.
wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to read up on history. Nothing like the cold war [archives.cbc.ca] to bring back some bad memories.
You misunderstand the disdain for communism (Score:5, Insightful)
No one gives a shit what you CHOOSE to do for a hobby, who you CHOOSE give the results to, or if you CHOOSE to run off and live on a commune with River Moonchild and a bunch of other random hippies.
It's when you demand under threat of violence (usually via government) that I do these things that we have a very, very big problem.
Re:You misunderstand the disdain for communism (Score:4, Interesting)
So it isn't communism that is evil, it is compelling people do something.
So tell me again why Americans hate communism?
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if a country invades other countries and brings them democracy because it is better for them... they are communists?
It's also an interesting training tool. (Score:3, Insightful)
Happened to me today, in fact.
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:3, Insightful)
Communism != totalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarism [wikipedia.org]
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:4, Funny)
No - it should happen sometime in this century.
Of course, it means eliminating humans - but what's the problem with that?
It's not like they have any intrinsic value, after all.
Re:Communism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Communism (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Communism (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Communism (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it would be better to say that communism is *a* revolutionary theory of Marxism --- one that comes from an awful misreading of Marx.
The GPL is actually quite *un*Marxist, as a True Marxist cheers on the onslaught of Unimpeded Capitalism (which we plainly do not have, as there are brakes on the economy and safety nets put in place in order to prevent the consequences of Unimpeded Capitalism from driving the 99% to overthrow the 1% feeding off of them, followed by the 99% installing some sort of Workers Paradise (not unlike the Christian idea of the Eschaton, though wholly materialistic and without a Final Judgement, eternal life, etc.). The GPL throws a monkey wrench into the works, as it keeps someone's labors from being stolen out from under them with no recompense. The GPL works well with Capitalism With Governor(s) Installed by acting as a governor on the system.
Thus the GPL is about as far from communism as you're going to get, as it is designed to help keep the capitalist system from destroying itself. This makes those who oppose it suspect, as they seem to be very interested in the self-destruction of capitalism, and work to remove the very mechanisms which allow capitalism to survive.
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:5, Informative)
Intially, communism requires a central authority directive whereby others are told what to make, how to make it, etc. by the central authority. As you can plainly see, no one in the Free Software community *forces* anyone else to make certain software to certain standards. In fact, the whole idea of the GPL is that if you dislike the direction a project is moving in, you can fork the project and make your own. Hardly a central planning scheme. You also have to look at what happens after the product is created: there's no central government that forces people to use this software. RMS doesn't come from on high and threaten to kick you out of the FOSS group if you chose to use x instead of y. You can use whatever you want - even none free software! Again, hardly characteristic of communism.
Your point that "It's a way of creating code for the community, and forcing those that use said code to in turn contribute to the community as well" is hardly indicative of communism - not does it force you to do anything. Intially, I can use OpenOffice or any other GPL'ed software without being require to contribute back. If I create derivative works of said product and intend to release my derivative works, I do have to GPL my product. You've entered a contract - it's no different from if I require a liscensing fee of so many dollars - that's the price you pay for entering the contract. You have the option not to create derivative works and instead start from scratch, creating no obligation to GPL your work. You *choose* to use GPL. And that's the fundamental difference between communism and captialism - freedom of choice.
As for why the GPL acutally espouses capitalism, the reasons seem more obfusated and possibly less obvious if you aren't up on your knowledge of free market economics - but, none the less, it's there. The GPL aids in the free flow of information - by being required to distribute your source code, your consumers are able to see exactly what your product does. Furthermore, this requirement for open source helps the market find its equilibrium price: people are able to make the best product possible, at the least price possible. You're in no way required to not sell your product - all the GPL requires is that you distribute your source code with your product. I can still sell my product for $300 if I want, so long as I include the source code with it. However, distributing it at $300 runs the risk that someone will modify my code to make it better and then sell it at a cheaper price, or might just redistribute copies of my software for free. Thus, I might decide to include some sort of support service as part of my price. Another person might decide to do the same at a cheaper price. I might have to lower my price as a result. This will continue until the market equilbrium price is reached (which very well might be zero - often times, however, it is not. Look at how much the commercial versions of Linux sell for, as an example). Rather than prices being artifically high because a monopoly exists on the product, you have a free market where supply/demand drives the price, which is based on the quality and desirability of the product provided.
Another way the GPL is capitalistic is that, above all, it provides *choice*. The whole point of capitalism is to provide a myraid of choices so that the best product at the best price prevails. The GPL ensures this will happen by preventing monopolies and ensuring consumers are informed. It also aids in the creation of new choices by getting rid of the red tape and bureaucracy usually involved in creating a derivative work. Freedom of choice is the antithesis of communism - it is at the very heart of captialism.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the US is not compeletly a free market economy. Things such as p
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:3, Insightful)
How many instances of something like "Office" do we need? If just one, then it might as well be based on open standards.
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's particularly entertaining about the OSS community is they use examples like this to push the idea that OSS avoids duplicating work and reinventing the wheel...
...Yet 90%+ of the OSS software out there is nothing more than a duplication of other OSS software.
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is good for business because ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES BESIDES THE PRODUCING INDUSTRY BENEFIT. With virtually free gasoline practically every product you buy will cost less. Software is a little like gasoline to many industries. Free software is a free public good that is non-scarce and infinitely divisible.
Is it good for the programmer job market? No. Tough titties, it's good for everybody else. Yours isn't the first industry to be decimated by progress.
tough luck! (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite right, parent should be modded insightful.
It's not like this hasn't happened before, after all...
There's the occupation known as "scribe"; a person who, for a fee, writes letters, petitions, etc, for illiterate people. This occupation is in demand where literacy levels are low (and sadly, this is still the case in many poorer countries today). In more developed countries, it's common for the mass of the population to be able to read and w
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:3, Interesting)
if you had to pay per unit licensing for every little bit of code you used then collaborative programming would go nowhere as projects would quickly become far too expensive to use
people coding as a hobby will always be destructive to certain segments of the software development profession
software thats freely availible will also be destructive to some segments (companies that sell boxed software)
but at the end of the day there will always
Re:Slim chance of winning? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, the former implies the latter. And your main point is just spectacularly wrong. Imagine a world where Apache, Linux, Java, Perl, Python, MySQL and all similar "gratis" software never came into being. If you want to run a web site, you have to pay thousands of dollars for the software just to get started. Will the demand for programmers be more or less than in our world? Hint: not more.
And even if free software somehow were harmful to programmers, opposing it on that basis alone is profoundly immoral, as it's an unquestionable benefit to everyone else. It would be the equivalent of candlemakers sabotaging light bulb factories to keep their jobs
Re:They took yer job! (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, we can just leave that out?
Giving things away for free for the purpose freedom is different than giving things away for free in order to cement an illegal monopoly and drive competition out of the market, is it not? Both may kill companies, but only one allows a company to gouge its customers.
3% of our DNA aside, we're all chimps.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They took yer job! (Score:5, Funny)
Someone team-killed Jeb Bush? This is the games section right? Oh, wait...
Re:They took yer job! (Score:3, Funny)
Springer show. (Score:5, Interesting)
For anyone who isn't aware, one of the other regular "writers" for LBW/LBN was recently outed, caught trolling on the SCOX message board to pull in more hits with his crackpot theories. It's looking like a company policy.
There's no doubt that MOG is simply using this Wallace fellow to help finance the ailing website. Personally I'm not going to visit it, and I'd suggest anyone else with any sense also not bother. The slashdot effect is exactly the thing they wish for over there... unless everyone visits with Lynx, or images turned off, of course
LBW/LBN is fast becoming the "Jerry Springer show" of the tech news sites...
Re:Springer show. (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, it said the two were a "crack tram" at first and as of right now still says Mr. O'Gara and Ms. Wallace.
Re:Springer show. (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't an error. "Crack tram" refers to the vehicle they were riding in when they came up with this...
Re:Springer show. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh damn. I have to remember...
"I" before "E", except after c, or before you hit the bloody Submit button.
*bangs head off desk a couple of times
Soko
Well, it was broken after all. (Score:5, Funny)
This is too funny! (Score:3, Insightful)
Price fixing my foot!
Re:This is too funny! (Score:5, Funny)
In other news: (Score:5, Funny)
just like Muni Wifi (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad that corporations think that they deserve special favors, or believe that they will receive them for the right price...
oh wait, they believe it because it happens...
Re:just like Muni Wifi (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you've ever lived in a rural area. Often times there will be one ISP provider who can charge whatever they want to, and often do. I don't know what pipe dream you live in, but in the pipe dream I call the United States, businesses are here to make as much money as possible, not to provide cheap internet. (Despite their
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the "nanny-state", it's democracy. What it damn well shouldn't be is corporatocracy.
it's called "democracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
You got it backwards. When a town votes and decides to turn certain services like Internet access over to a public utility, that's called "democracy". Perhaps you have heard of it.
When the state government comes in and negates the will of the voters in some corrupt scheme to help commercial campaign contributors to make more money, that's "real communism" (i.e., corrupt, centralized government).
Crack Tram? (Score:4, Funny)
Want a good laugh? (Score:5, Funny)
It starts out as "The Plaintiff Daniel Wallace......"
and in the damages section changes to "The Defendant Daniel Wallace..."
what a moron..
Re:Want a good laugh? (Score:5, Funny)
Moran.
Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, free software drives prices down (remember when IE was released for free, while Netscape was still selling for $30?). Oh, the commercial software industry is dying too. Then why is Windows still the most popular operating system in existance?
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the long term, yes. But in the short term it may be desirable for the price-fixers to undercut the price to corner the market. Once they have driven others out of the market, they are free (har har) to set the price to whatever they want.
This is the theoretical problem with a monopoly, or with a small group that are seeking to drive others out of the market.
In that sense, it does seem that the companies that are pushing GPL are attempting to price-fix software at 0 for now, so they can drive other companies out of the software industry so they can make money through software services instead.
It's absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
This is nothing new. Happens all the time. Only reason it's on
Hey, where's the foot icon?
I've said it before. (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with justice.
It has nothing to do with quality and or merits.
It has nothing to do with "who deserves to win".
If not SCO, then someone else will win. It will be the stupidest ruling in the history of law, no doubt, but somehow it will win. IBM on our side or not. I am not a troll, though it should be obvious I'm far from being an optimist.
I hope I am wrong.
All that said, does it suprise you that with SCO being an embarrassment, that Microsoft would start up a few other legal experiments? They no doubt have people whose sole job is to dream up possible litigation, and we can expect 1-3 of these things per year, until one succeeds or they run out of money. Guess which one will happen first.
We will all rejoice when the GPL falls in court (Score:3, Interesting)
GPL is the flip side of copyright. You simply cannot question the GPL unless you first eliminate copyright laws as we know them.
Paraphrasing ESR (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course there are some exceptions -- the gaming industry, for example (though MMORPGs have the "subscription service" thing down). Unfortunately I can't name any others at the time but I'm sure there's more.
The GPL isn't a price-fixing scheme...it basically exposed the current artifically inflated price-fixing scheme that is proprietary software.
Adapt and evolve, baby. Or cry about it all the way to extinction.
Everyone loves analogies (Score:5, Insightful)
Not very much.
When everybody has a compiler, what is your bland piece of software worth?
Not very much.
Without entering into whether or not it's right, the GPL definitely raises the bar on what makes a marketable piece of software. I think the everybody-owns-the-factory analogy is pretty appropriate.
Once upon a time, people made a living by delivering ice to your home. Now we have freezers and make our own ice. What kind of money can you make delivering ice?
Not very much.
Does that mean you should attack the freezer manufacturers or does it mean you should find a better way of doing business?
Apparently, the answer to that question will be decided in a court of law rather than the court of common sense.
Heh (Score:4, Interesting)
Wouldn't dumping be a more accurate complaint, since anti-dumping laws protect other businesses from large competitors selling for below cost? But since there's virtually no cost involved in making copies of software and the R&D is typically recouped by service contracts with IBM, Red Hat and the like, this lawsuit would appear to fall under the catagory of 'hilarity'.
I don't mind paying for software (except for basic OS and utilities), but if you're going to charge me for it, you damn well better be offering a better product than what a bunch of students and professionals crank out in their spare time for free.
GPS All GPL Software Authors! (Score:3, Funny)
(Seriously. The only time GPL hurts businesses is when they use code and don't honor the GPL. Their their own stupid ass mistakes.)
If you don't like GPL software... (Score:5, Funny)
What most people seem to not realize (Score:5, Insightful)
but wonder if he has an angle that might have a slim chance of prevailing
Put any issue like this in a court, especially in front of a jury, especially in America, and literally anything can happen, regardless of the lawyers or facts on either side.
Juries will do what they think is justice based upon what they think they understand.
Saying that SCO's case is lost, or this one would not stand a chance is simply not legitimate. Many experienced legal commentators seem to tend to give either side in just about any major case a 50-50 chance of winning. That is why the smartest thing you can do is to figure out how to stay out of court, unless you are evil and rich and like injustice. Over the long haul it may get corrected, but the courtroom is a roll of the dice.
That is also probably why jury-tried issues carry little if any weight as legal precedence. While it would be very incorrect to say that the facts are irrelevant, it would also be very incorrect to say that they will carry the day or that this or any other issue could not be won in court, especially before a jury.
If I'm not terribly mistaken (Score:4, Informative)
If I'm not terribly mistaken juries are not permitted to rule on issues of law, only those of fact. This particular suit appears to be demanding nearly purely a ruling of law.
Re:If I'm not terribly mistaken (Score:5, Interesting)
In my case, the plantiff was a person who was busted for posession of methamphetamine and drug paraphanelia.
Both sides present to the jury what they think will give the best chance for conviction (ie, the prosecution does this) or acquittal (the defense's job). In preparing the papers for the jury, both sides are allowed to submit papers that describe the offense.
Now this guy was guilty as all hell of what he was accused of. After the case was over, the defense attorney came in and asked the jury what she could have done differently, and those of us talking to her agreed that putting him on the stand would've helped - but she said "Oh, I couldn't have done that, because he was in fact guilty."
She then explained that what would've happened had she had the defendant testify was that the prosecution would've asked him about the warrant he was served with, and he would've had to testify as to his drug production history, which would guarantee a conviction.
Also, in amongst the papers we were given was a definition of the statute we were to rule on where it stated that posession of drug paraphanelia required an intent to use - which wasn't proven in the case. I actually stopped to talk to the judge about this after the case was over, and he said "Yeah, defense attorneys use that citation of case precident to try to get their defendants an acquittal - it never works, but they have to try it." The way it was presented was in its case form - and to a non-lawyer, that can be presented to it looks like a statute.
All jokes aside about not being able to avoid jury duty - it is a very interesting process, and if you live in the US, you should try it at least once.
Re:If I'm not terribly mistaken (Score:4, Informative)
It's true that juries will do the darndest things, but the case will only reach a jury if the judge decides: (a) that the suit satisfies various legal requirements (standing, jurisdiction, etc.) and (b) that there is a significant issue of fact in dispute. Furthermore, in a civil suit such as this, there isn't always a right to a jury trial. The rules for determining when there is a right to a jury trial in a civil suit in federal court are complicated, but generally speaking, when the relief requested is just an injunction (as opposed to monetary damages) there is no right to a jury trial. (Here [ajs.org]'s a summary of the rules.) So, this case will almost certainly be decided by a judge.
Case Study (Score:3, Insightful)
Ianal, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ianal, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Honorable ______,
Plaintiff has got to be kidding.
Respectfully submitted,
________________
Attorneys at Law
I wondered when this would happen (Score:5, Interesting)
People seem to think they have some kind of entitlement to profits. People, the world doesn't owe you ANYTHING. Generally speaking, if you can't convince people to pay you money for your work, it's your problem. If part time hobbiest developers can create free tools that are better for the price than your commercial ones, I'd say you need to work harder.
In a true capitalistic system, profits are VERY hard to come by. This is a good thing, because people work hard without sucking in a huge amount of resources, to the betterment of society. Competition sucks, because you never get to rest on your laurels. You have to keep running to stay in place, and frankly that's BY DESIGN. It is very nearly the whole POINT. You have to really produce something people want to get a profit, and you have to keep innovating to keep it. If volunteer efforts can produce a free tool which is good enough, that means you need to step it up a notch to produce something people want to pay you for. After all, you're expecting to be paid, so you should be able to put more time/energy into it.
Seesh. What ever happened to doing something just to make the world a better place, or make other people happy? Now it's price fixing. I feel very sad when I see this kind of thing, because it underlines how little regard we have for the world around us. The world is a cold, empty place when people generously and cheerfully giving you something out of the goodness of their hearts is looked upon as price fixing, and it's enough to make me sick.
The worst part of it is, in many these companies are making a profit over and above what they are paying their employees, and yet somehow this isn't enough. Providing people with productive, well paying jobs isn't the point, the point is MAKE MORE MONEY.
At some point in the future, we are going to hit a situation where our economy CANNOT, because of limitations of physical resources, be driven by growth. It will have to be steady state, and I think the US is doomed when this happens because we don't know how not to be greedy, to appreciate the community around us, and be happy that it is prospering. We are focused on ME,ME,ME, and it can't go on forever. The Earth is finite, and the energy costs of space travel are not economic on the large scales of the global system. We WILL have to face it, and when we do I hope we can remember how to be human beings, and not just profit machines.
The case may have merit, sadly (Score:3, Informative)
WHAT IS PRICE FIXING?
What is price fixing - legal answers at FreeAdvice.com's business section
"Most state statutes provide that fixing the price of a product or service in agreement with another individual or business is illegal. The general rule provides that a vendor may not in combination with another vendor agree to set a certain price thereby creating a fixed price within a certain market. A business acting on its own and not in concert with another may use legitimate efforts to obtain the best price they can, including their ability to raise prices to the detriment of the general public. Also, conformity of prices within a given product is not illegal unless such conformity was created by a combination of vendors agreeing on a set price. For example, where competitors agree to sell their goods or services at a specified price, minimum price or maximum price and they receive profits from such an agreement, they are in violation of price fixing. Additionally, setting a price to be charged only within a certain area in order to get rid of competition or to create a monopoly is generally illegal under most state laws. A majority of states have also enacted a "Below-Sales-Cost" law wherein businesses may not sell goods below cost if they do so with anti-competitive intent or effect."
So, giving away something at a loss to drive competition out of business is illegal. I've never been a fan of anti-trust legislation, and now maybe anti-MS zealots will see my point of view if these laws start affecting them adversely.
three letters: T - C - O (Score:5, Funny)
I'm confused now. I've been reviewing all these reports that Linux has a greater total cost of ownership. So damn. What's this? Now it's unfairly fixing the price too low?
I don't get it! What am I missing here???
Someone help a poor capitalist out...
---
Moral of the story: You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You know what gets me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that companies who back these kind of ideas are the same ones who will outsource your job to save a buck. In a SECOND.
So they cry when anybody taps their market (be it VOIP, FOSS, or whatnot), and they lobby for laws to *protect* their business. Yet they have no problems doing this to PEOPLE.
Companies HAVE a responsibility to their customers, and the cities/towns/COUNTRIES they do business it. They should be MADE to give back instead of just taking taking taking.
I'm tired of hearing stuff about "well it's their coumpany and they can do what they want." This way of thinking is really wrong, IMHO, and is just a symptom of how they have brainwashed everyone. Morality doesn't seem to exist in the corporate world, everything is for the blind pursuit of profit... generally by crawling up the backs of hard working people, then kicking them down when they reach the summit.
Pure capitalism is faulty, somebody needs to reign these greedy people in. It'd be nice if someone could pull the wool back up, from over the general public's eyes.
this all makes me so bloody angry.
Thank you. This brightened my day. (Score:4, Funny)
I feel much better now. Thank you! ^^
Interesting choice of venue (Score:3, Funny)
Disclaimer: I grew up in Indiana. I don't live there any more.
Aren't any good lawyers left on USA? (Score:3, Interesting)
But what if [Pick Your Favorite Evil] decides to fund a real research to find a way to manipulate the laws until they make the GPL look illegal?
I guess it already has been done, by a number of companies that have interests on OpenSource. We can only speculate about their findings...
I don't know about the USA, but here at Brasil the GPL is a contract. And here, a contract is treated as a "law between peers". So, as long as it doesn't go against the legislation, it's as valid and enforceable as an EULA. Only that an EULA normaly restricts your rights, and give you lot's of rules to be followed... and the GPL grants you rights, since you follow some rules.
I'm not a lawyer, but it would be interesting to see how the GPL stands against the legislation of every country in the world. Pehaps the FSF should put a map online, wiht green areas pointing where the GPL is valid and backed by the laws, and red areas where it's just a bunch of words with no value.
The USA should be painted yellow, I guess.
Close, but way off (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's not the GPL which is a price fixing scheme, but copyright. As in copyright allows the author to set any price they want to license their work. Somehow I don't think Wallace, O'Gara, and countless others quite understand this simple fact (or are not willing to admit it, as this pseudo-monopolistic characteristic of copyright seems to fly in the face of other free market ideals).
The GPL actually removes this restriction by allowing a copyrighted work to be licensed for any amount of money desired by any party with a copy of the work. Zero just happens to be the most typical number, for the practical reason that it is difficult to get customers to pay exorbitant sums for what is usually available elsewhere for free.
Heh, maybe we should just abolish copyright and remove this restraint of trade in all cases. This way anyone could license any work created by anyone else for however much they thought they could get, though this probably isn't the type of "solution" the software industry has in mind.
Re:Close, but way off (Score:3, Insightful)
Without copyright, anyone would be able to take a GPL'd work, change it, and distribute their changed version without any obligation to release the source (as the copyright on the original code would not be valid, the terms of the GPL itself would be equally invalid). How is this is any way in keeping with the intent of the author of a work that he placed under the GPL?
If you like free software to remain free, we need Copyright.
Lawsuit Says Freedom is a Price-Fixing Scheme (Score:3, Funny)
A huge volume of information is given away on the Internet for free!
The other day, I saw some kids in a parking lot telling each other dirty jokes without charging a fee!
Then there was Amy in high school; everyone says she gave away something for free, but I never found out what it was.
Giving stuff away free harms people who would like to sell it, and must stop immediately!
Wait; back up. (Score:4, Interesting)
What exactly is the relationship of Ms. O'Gara to this lawsuit?
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute...Wal-Mart. (Score:5, Interesting)
And as people are quick to point out about digital goods. They have no value... oh wait, wrong discussion. No "asking for, and getting" are two different things. Plus much like Wal-mart it puts pressure on software practitioners to the lowest price possible.* It most certainly doesn't put pressure on anyone to raise them.
*Throw in globalization and really let the fun begin. Software's free, and the person writting it is damn close to it.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)
The FSF is not selling a product. There is no offer to buy or acceptance of that offer. In fact, **there is no product** To quote from the GPL:
Read it again: without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY. The FSF is being open that their code is not a salable product.
Anyone is welcome to come along and turn the FSF's code into a salable product. They can do this by offering a warranty that the code has a useful purpose and can do so for whatever price they choose. Again to quote from the GPL:
The generally low price for GPLd software is a consequence of unfettered competition, something monopolists have a problem with.
Now go and crawl back under your bridge.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you please cite statutes?
The only ones mentioned in the case are a jurisdictional one and one about remedies (15 USC 25 I think). None of the sections the latter mentions as applicable has anything that I can tell these people are violating...
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Informative)
The GP is likely referring to the WTO dumping laws. It should be pointed out that those rules only apply to international trade. Since the suit is being brought by an U.S. citizen against a U.S. organization WTO rules have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
> That's completely false. You should be ashamed
> of yourself. Wallace claims, correctly, that Gnu
> is selling their product for less than what it
> costs to produce it.
Hm. Let's see. Even if we go with your inane fantasy here, just how much do you suppose it costs the GNU project to allow someone to produce software for the world under the GNU license? Aside from the distribution costs (borne by major foundation grants as well as smaller donations from people like me) the costs i
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3)
So selling a loss leader is illegal now? Better call Microsoft's X-Box division.
Cheers
Stor
Re:A real world example: mod_proxy_html (Score:5, Insightful)
- nobody is forced to work on gpl'd software
- nobody is forcing anyone to try to make a living directly from gpl code
- people don't necessarily write code and release it under the gpl to make money
- some people WILL "do the right thing", by giving something of value back to the author
If you read the law suit, you'd have seen that the guy is complaining that he can't make a living programming because he can't compete with the price of free software, that the gpl is a "price restraint scheme".part of the "deal" behind using gpl code in your product, instead of developing it from scratch, is the value of you not having to develop it from scratch
there are other ways to add value. Or you can work with proprietary code - oh, no you can't - you don't have the source.
perhaps they are using the code in-house, and see the benefit of getting the "many eyes" of others working on it, saving their company money in the process
this can be code improvements, bug reports, etc. Its not always about money
This is utter bs. There is nothing preventing him from writing closed software. Of course, he'll have to have licenses for any libraries he uses/buys, etc., (or is he going to complain that requiring a license for closed-source libraries *also* prevents him from competing, since the copyright holder of closed-source libraries can charge any price they want ...)
Strange how all these attacks on the gpl, groklaw, etc., come just as LongHorn totally fails to wow everyone. Coincidence? Probably not.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it seems to your ignorant legal eye that you'd give away someone else's property without abiding by the license they set as the terms for you to use their software.
In other words, if you take my work, which I released freely under the GPL,
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
b) 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.
Seems to my inexperienced legal eye that the GPL does, in fact, force me to give away my software for free.
You're suffering from BSA brainwashing, I think. You see, the GPL only deals with copyright as defined by law, and there is nothing in copyright law that supports the concept of a "license to use". The ONLY kind of license copyright law, and the GPL, deals with is a license to copy and distribute (aka publishing).
You can sell GPLed software for any price you like (within the bounds of law, anyway, so no "first-born" or "female virgin sex-slaves"), even if you didn't write it. What that clause means is that IF you find someone willing to pay your price you may not CHARGE EXTRA for the rights to republish said GPLed software.
Your mistake is in thinking that EULAs have any basis in copyright law. Again, there is no such thing in copyright law as an "end user license".
It's TOTALLY price fixing! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rob Sokolowski (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, is it so hard to imagine that you would be sued by this guy for harassment?
Re:Rob Sokolowski (Score:3, Funny)
908-835-1387
That number has been disconnected now. The telco message is saying calls are "now being taken by 610.438.2241"
Re:Yes, but ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:IMO - GPL was a reaction to M$ Domination (Score:5, Informative)
And you should check your sources [gnu.org]; Stallman came up with the GPL long before Microsoft had its monopoly.
The Devil and Daniel Wallace (Score:3, Interesting)
Contrary to the subject of this story, which equates the GPL to an corrupt trust price-fixing scheme, Mr. Wallace instead seems to consistently promote the idea that the GPL is invalid based on an interpretation of derivative works that requires consent from their author, in addition to the original author, for distribution.
He points out that the FSF an
Re:The Devil and Daniel Wallace (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL itself says what it relies upon. "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."
This comment is explanatory. It is also the truth, and why it is that those who attempt to litigate against the GPL inevitably end up turning into ass monkeys.
C//
Re:I don't know how I feel about this (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like giving away a cake with its recipe, but then saying that if anyone else wanted to sell the cake, they had to give away the recipe with the cake.
As you can surely recall, the first cookbooks swiftly destroyed the restaurant and food service industries.
Re:Yes, "price fixing" is only bad when MS does it (Score:3, Insightful)
It's ain't the