SFLC will love the 7th Circuit

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 10/13/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhov at gmail.com] wrote:
> > Nothing personal Chris, but consider:
> >
> > http://www.marxist.com/computer-industry-capitalism-free-
> > software240907.htm
> >
> > "The advantage of the GPL licence is that instead of copyright, it
> > imposes a strong copyleft on the software licensed under it."
>
> The GPL does not impose it.

[...]

> Authors still have all their exclusive rights, they just grant a licence on

REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw):

"If modified works or machine-readable versions of GPL- or
LGPL-licensed software are distributed, they must be licensed "at no
charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License." (Ex. 27 ¶ 2 (emphasis added); Ex. 26 ¶ 2; see
also Ex. 27 ¶ 3; Ex. 26 ¶ 4.)"

IBM to the 7th Circuit:

"Wallace apparently attempts to distinguish Broadcast Music, asserting
that programmers using the GPL are "owners of the intellectual
property," ... Like the blanket licenses in Broadcast Music, though,
the "parties" to the GPL do not negotiate with each other for the
terms of the agreement, but rather accept the terms as a function of
the licensing system itself. The "ownership" interests contributors to
software licensed under the GPL might have in their modifications are
seriously limited, given that any distribution of those modifications
must be done under the terms of the GPL."

Wallace to the 7th Circuit:

"IBM et al. state [IBM Brief at 15, ¶1] "The ownership interests
contributors to software licensed under the GPL might have in their
modifications are seriously limited, given that any distribution of
those modifications must be done under the terms of the GPL". This
statement constitutes a mea culpa"

Chief Judge Easterbrook to the world:

"Copyright and patent laws give authors a right to charge more, so
that they can recover their fixed costs (and thus promote innovation),
but they do not require authors to charge more. No more does antitrust
law require higher prices. Linux
and other open-source projects have been able to cover their fixed
costs through donations of time"

See also

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
(Why Software Should Not Have Owners)

regards,
alexander.

--
"To show the falsity of 'PJ''s claims, in most cases I need look no further
than Groklaw itself. 'PJ' wants more journalists to use the site as a
resource, so I'll do just that. Below are excerpts from my story that 'PJ'
says are incorrect, followed by 'PJ''s characterization of them, and my
response -- at times taken directly from Groklaw."

                                           -- http://tinyurl.com/2mn3jc