GPL survives antitrust challenge

GPL survives antitrust challenge - again

Posted Nov 10, 2006 12:36 UTC (Fri) by zotz (guest, #26117)
In reply to: GPL survives antitrust challenge - again by bojan
Parent article: GPL survives antitrust challenge - again

I see this discussion goes back and forth for a while... Let me see if I can words things in a different way that, if correct, might clear up things for people. (If they are unclear in the first place.)

I am not commenting on the ruling itself by the way.

"The judge is clearly referring to copyright issues here ("license prohibits charging for the derivative work" - see section 2b of the GPL - royalty-free distribution), not charging for for the physical copy of the software."

So, under the gpl you can charge someone whatever you want, everytime they want you to pass a copy of the program from you to them.

"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."

Note that this not for the physical copy, but for the physical act of transferring a copy. This could be over the net from your computer to theirs.

BUT, you can't sell them a license which kicks in on all copies they make from the one they get from you.

Once they pay you to transfer them one copy, they can make as many copies for themselves, or others, as they wish without owing you anything further. There are no terms you can add to your deal with them to get around this. (At least in spirit, some, I am sure, are looking to get around it.)

Now, if they come back to you once a day for a single copy for a hundred days, you can charge them one hundred times. If they come one day and want you to transfer the same program to them one hundred seperate times, you can charge them one hundred times again.

The only gotcha is if you originall supply a binary only and no source with your original transfer.

(I thought I might be able to word things differently and simply. I think I got the differently at least.)

all the best,

drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel

(Log in to post comments)

GPL survives antitrust challenge - again

Posted Nov 11, 2006 2:51 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> BUT, you can't sell them a license which kicks in on all copies they make from the one they get from you.

> Once they pay you to transfer them one copy, they can make as many copies for themselves, or others, as they wish without owing you anything further.

Exactly! Thanks for this clear wording. I think you captured exactly what I was trying to say, but much better.

And this is what the judge said:

> Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL.

So, he's saying that usually copyright holders do exactly the opposite of the GPL - they "collect a fee" every time you reproduce the work ("limited reproduction"). They do this by licensing their work like this: "If you make a copy, I get $5. If you create a derivative and publish it, I get $5 for every copy."

So, when he says next that "any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws", I'm pretty sure he means sell a licence (permission, authorisation) for it. How could he not mean that, when GPL itself explicitly says exactly that:

> 2. 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.

I'm reasonably sure he didn't miss "licensed as a whole at no charge".