Re: Final text of GPL v3 (original) (raw)

Chris Waters writes:

All free licenses, and especially all copyleft licenses, require the waiver of certain legal rights (such as the right to sue for copyright infringement).

Explain, please. There have been a number of copyright complaints filed (in Germany and the US) over GPLed software. The GPL's copyleft nature did not bar those lawsuits. I am not aware of any that went to trial in the US, but at least one German lawsuit alleging GPL violations was decided[1] for the licensor, and other cases (in both countries) have settled with the defendant agreeing to comply with the GPL.

[1]- http://www.gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html

The requirement in copyleft to provide source code can also be seen as a fee--in fact, this has been cited as a reason for considering the GPLv2 valid, enforcible and non- discriminatory with respect to anti-trust law.

That unattributed "has been cited" reads like a poor appeal to an indefinite authority. Daniel Wallace's failed anti-trust lawsuit cited such provisions as reasons to consider the GPLv2 invalid, unenforceable and an unlawful conspiracy with respect to anti-trust law. We can see how far making that claim got him.

(Incidentally, neither the district court's ruling[2] to dismiss Wallace's complaint, nor the appeals court's order[3] upholding dismissal, treat the requirement to provide source code as a fee. To the contrary, their orders seem to view it primarily as a benefit to the end user and to the software community.

[2]- http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf [3]- http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf )

While there is a fairly broad range of what people on this list think is a "fee", in the end, providing source code for software that one distributes has never been considered a fee. Giving up tangible property, actions unrelated to software (such as petting a cat) and intellectual property unrelated to the software in question (such as over-broad patent defense clauses) have been considered fees. Concessions necessary to exercise software freedoms have not.

Michael Poole

Reply to: