| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GPL survives antitrust challenge - againGPL survives antitrust challenge - againPosted Nov 10, 2006 2:41 UTC (Fri) by louie (subscriber, #3285)In reply to: GPL survives antitrust challenge - again by bojan Parent article: GPL survives antitrust challenge - again
No, what I was referring to was this, in the first paragraph: "Authors who distribute their works under this license... authorize not only copying but also the creation of derivative works—and the license prohibits charging for the derivative work." Emphasis mine; GPL analysis Easterbrook's and clearly not FSF's :)
(Log in to post comments)
GPL survives antitrust challenge - again Posted Nov 10, 2006 2:59 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Yeah, that's what I quoted as well.
When the judge says "the license prohibits charging for the derivative work", he isn't referring to charging for a physical copy of the work - he's referring to charging for royalties. The whole section is in the context of copyright, where physical objects have almost no meaning. That's why I quoted that additional paragraph, which further clarifies that the meaning of "collect[ing] a fee" is in the context of "limiting reproduction", which is a matter of copyright.
So, he's right on the money (excuse the pun :-), as GPL requires distribution of software on royalty-free basis. That's exactly the FSF interpretation as well. You can charge for physical copies of the work, but you cannot collect royalties for the copyright licence you're giving with the work.
GPL survives antitrust challenge - again Posted Nov 10, 2006 3:01 UTC (Fri) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link] Ah, you're right; my fault for not reading your post more carefully. Long day today.
|
|
||||||||||||