GPL survives antitrust challenge

GPL survives antitrust challenge - again

Posted Nov 11, 2006 2:51 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
In reply to: GPL survives antitrust challenge - again by zotz
Parent article: GPL survives antitrust challenge - again

> 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".

(Log in to post comments)