Court Rules GPL Doesn't Violate Antitrust Laws 80
unix4reel writes "Internet Cases reports on a new decision from a federal court in Chicago holding that 'the GPL and open-source have nothing to fear from the antitrust laws. The suit was against IBM, Red Hat and Novell, arguing that by distributing Linux for free, they offered products at an unbeatably low price (free), thus discouraging new market entrants and stifling competition. The court took a different view, focusing instead on how the GPL fosters new development."
w00t (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't that Wallace the Spam King? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No; this is Daniel Wallace - net.kook, and inventor of "sciBSD", a purported OS, which in reality consisted of a (very) badly written HTML page.
GPL is a little tough guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always uber-painful waiting for common sense to wake up. Look at Iraq, DRM, RIAA, GPL, NTP, etc., etc. - sometimes I feel like I have this ability to foreshadow common sense years into the future.
I know that everyone will eventually catch up, but it's so difficult to wait...
Unbeatable? I think not! (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong, free is not unbeatable; they just need to pay the end user top use their software!
Unbeatable price? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Users do not have GPL restrictions, only people modifying and distributing do.
The only restriction that might conceivably hit a user is if they give away Linux CDs, or sell PCs with Linux installed, as they become liable to distribute the source too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzzt! Wrong, thanks for playing. The GPL itself says, in plain english, that you did not have a chance to see the GPL beforehand, you did not sign anything, you do NOT have to 'accept' the GPL - the software is free to do with as you please. The only reason you need to accept the GPL is IF you are re-distributing it or distributing modified versions of the software - that is all the GPL covers. That's it. NO ONE just using GPL software has to accept the GPL at all.
Interesting thing about the opinion... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the Court makes a mistake that fundamental -- the idea that you can't charge for software derived from other GPL software -- then we should all consider ourselves lucky that the opinion in toto was correct. IANAL, but doesn't this kind of "bug" open up possible avenues for appeal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Isn't that Wallace the Spam King? (Score:3, Informative)
Victory over a paper tiger. (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that the bully boys of the RIAA always go after people who don't have the resources to defend themselves. Even then they lose the occasional case. Justice in this country goes to whoever can hire the best lawyers.
Am I cynical? Yep.
What was the Plaintiff thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't obvious (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds like the case didn't deal with the GPL directly. The case dealt with selling software below cost. This is important, because in some states it is illegal to sell commodities below cost. (This was to deal with Wal-mart offering loss-leaders and driving small companies out of business). So it is a valid question to ask: Is it legal to sell software below cost? The court found that unlike commodities, the software industry can thrive with companies offering free software. That makes sense to me.
To put a fine point on this, it has little to do with the GPL (a copyright) since this was not an analysis of copyright. And it had little to do with open-source, since I can sell open-source software. It deals with free (as in beer) software.
Guy with no case loses to well funded corporation. (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM has both the law itself, and reams of money on their side. The other guy doesn't.
This is about as close as it gets to an "open and shut" case.
What's this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unbeatable price? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong.
Like copyright law, the GPL says nothing about users. It merely grants people the right to make copies under certain conditions. Since using it does not require any permissions you do not already have, you do not need to accept the license to use it.
The same would be the case for non-free software, except for the existance of EULAs. (And they may be on shaky legal ground.)
Seriously, folks, read it sometime. It's the clearest bit of legalese you're likely to find.
What Price? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Victory over a paper tiger (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Challenge was doomed because of the Constitution. (Score:4, Insightful)
From the good ol' Constitution, Section 8:
"Congress shall have the Power"... "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
The whole reason we have copyright is to promote the useful sciences and arts, which is exactly what the GPL is for as well, they simply use different methods.
Re:Challenge was doomed because of the Constitutio (Score:2)
To be honest, I think the GPL actually protects re-users because otherwise copyright would work against them. The Linux kernel, for example, contains the original work of hundreds
That's Daniel Wallace (Score:2, Informative)
Those pinky-commie judges! (Score:3, Funny)
Not an unbeatable price. (Score:2, Redundant)
Stifling market entry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, Linux "vendors" are really in the support business. Nobody is stopping anybody from opening up their own support business for any distro they want. It can't even be argued that the 'vendors" have some sort of unfair advantage because of exclusive access t5o the source code... because they are required to distribute it, for free, to anyone who wants it. Even direct competitors! The only barrier to entry for me from slapping a decal on my car and declaring myself a traveling Linux support tech for hire is that, well, I'd be a thoroughly useless Linux support tech. And blaming that on IBM just won't fly no matter how good my lawyer is.
Same person that sued FSF (Score:5, Informative)
RE: This isn't obvious (Score:1)
(IANAL) It seems completely obvious to me that prohibitions to selling below cost do not apply to free software. Ignoring the whole "software is not an actual good" argument, charities and other "freebie" programs offer things below cost all the time. Even calling these cases "sales" is dubious, and the same distinction should hold for F/OSS. A law designed to prevent anti-competition by banning loss-leaders and the like should only apply to an entity that can compete! Charging for service or distribution i
antitrust (Score:5, Interesting)
My question... (Score:2)
GPL has no price (Score:4, Informative)
And you would be wrong, since accepting the GPL is not required to receive or use GPL'd software, by the terms of the GPL itself. It is only required to have the privilege of modifying or distributing software distributed under the GPL. Its not an EULA. You lose no right that you had without the GPL when you accept the GPL, you simply gain limited privileges that you did not have before.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, this statement is not true either. If you change your "or" to an "and" it should fix it though. You are explicitly allowed to modify GPL software with no obligations incurred until you decide to distribute.
strike
Re: (Score:2)
Well, its unlikely that anyone is going to know or take any action if you modify a copy without distributing it, but see paragraph 4 & 5 of the GPL:
Re: Interesting thing about the opinion... (Score:3, Interesting)
Mr Coward misinterprets what that sentence is saying. It's not saying you can't sell derivative copies (pretty sure none of these [google.com] are directly from Mr Torvalds); it's saying the licenser (original seller) isn't allowed to charge the licensee (new buyer) royalties if the buyer wants to sell their own version. Which is exactly correct.
Reply to geoffspear (Score:2, Insightful)
geoffspear wrote: "Umm, if you think that someone with no resources could be successfully prosecuted for violating antitrust laws, you probably don't understand antitrust law at all. If you're too small to harm your competitors though anti-competitive activity, then by definition you can't violate antitrust law."
IANAL but I don't think your statement is entirely accurate. I don't think a monopoly has anything to do with
Cheaper than Free (Score:2)
Pay people to buy it.
Or, under some definitions, sell below costs ala XBox360, PS3, Zune...
Call In Ballmer (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How to compete with free (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Victory over a paper tiger. (Score:5, Informative)
He also has a reputation of not suffering fools lightly and he can be extremely confrontational in oral argument. I've argued two appeals before him and it's an experience I'll never forget. At any rate, the fact that this opinion came from Judge Easterbrook will carry a great deal of weight. The precedent isn't tarnished by the lackluster plaintiff. Nobody else would have the balls to contend the GPL violates antitrust laws; it's a frivolous argument from a nut. I'm sure Easterbrook tore this guy a new one in oral argument.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure that's what it says - I read it as not being able to charge other parties for the derivative works they create.
Paper Tiger? (Score:1)
While this may have been a fairly gentle attempt at testing the GPL under antitrust, I doubt the GPL would be in much danger regardless of who it faced. There are enough people with investment (monetary, ideological or otherwise) in the survival of the GPL to stump up the cash should it depend on it. If we all gave a fiver...
can this be appealed? (Score:1)
Re:In response to the FUD spreader up above... (Score:2)
Pure and unmitigated bullshit! That's not even possible, since the GPL doesn't force anything! It relies on copyright law for its teeth, and your programs on top of the web server would not be derivative works as defined by copyright law, so there's no way for the GPL to affect them! What will change in the GPLv3 is that if the webserver (or a webapp) comes with a b
Re:GPL is a little tough guy (Score:1)
Publish OpenOffice.Org documents? (Score:1)
Re: can this be appealed? (Score:1)
For example, if the judge said "I find that
Re: can this be appealed? (Score:1)
Re:In response to the FUD spreader up above... (Score:1)
What type of non-sense is that? TTBOMK, There is no clause that says anything at al
'Victory over a paper tiger' NO NO NO (Score:2, Insightful)
"The goodness of this victory is diluted by the fact that Wallace didn't have the money to properly argue his case. As such, it doesn't have much value as a precident. If someone with big bucks was making the argument, and if the GPL was being defended by someone with no resources, the decision could have gone the other way.
Note that the bully boys of the RIAA always go after people who don't have the resources to defend themselves. Even then they lose the occasional case. Ju
Threadless reply (Score:2)
Ahem, please remove all copyrighted artwork and trademarks before redis
Antitrust? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why does it even matter what the court thinks about beneficial or detrimental effects to the software business? There are some folks who work on software in their own time and release it for free. Who will deny them their right to release whatever they own for free?
What's next? A writer releasing short stories or books for free... Will we also need a court musing about whether this is violates antitrust law?
This case should have been thrown out in the beginning.
Re:Unbeatable price? (Score:2)
Re: can this be appealed? (Score:1)
assholes change tune to suit themselfs (Score:1)
this will become a problem when... (Score:2)
For that is what teh GPL is alll about.... comsumer choice, be the consumer a developer or an end user
Re:Unbeatable price? (Score:2)
You're free to do all the usage and private modification you like.
Dan Wallace's Online Rantings (Score:2)
Or use this url:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/t9uxc [tinyurl.com]
Otherwise known as "how so many brain cells can get so much wrong"
Laughter inducing.
--
BMO
Re:Unbeatable price? (Score:2)
The terms for *using* GPL-software are very simple: You may use GPL-software in any way you want.
You are not even required to accept the GPL if you are only *using* the software.
Doesn't get much simpler than that.
So, no. *using* GPL software has no price. And no conditions whatsoever imposed by the GPL.
It *is* ofcourse subject to the limitations in laws. If you do somet
Another Wallace (Score:2)
Daniel Wallace [wikipedia.org], who might have helped FSF by giving them a valuable prior case.
Unbeatable price? Yes, for end users. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only people who have to worry about the GPL are those who are going to redistribute the code.
Re: Victory over a paper tiger (Score:1)
The little guy with no resources was suing them, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)