A US federal judge has ruled against antitrust claims that the General Public Licence promotes unfair competition, and in doing so has promoted its cause. On Monday, US Federal Judge John Daniel Tinder, dismissed the Sherman Act antitrust claims brought against the Free Software Foundation. The claims made by Plaintiff Daniel Wallace included: that the General Public License constituted a contract, combination or conspiracy; that it created an unreasonable restraint of trade; and that the FSF conspired with IBM, Red Hat, Novell and other individuals to pool and cross-license their copyrighted intellectual property in a predatory price fixing scheme.
how can the GPL promote unfair competition when Linux and oss sotware apps are on less then 10 % of the worlds computers because the other 90% are running windows.
As mind boggling as it may be, Linux is on more than 10 % of the world’s computer, and Windows sure enough is NOT on 90 % of the world’s computers.
I think you mixed “world’s desktops” and “world’s computers” …
Here is a news flash for you PeeCee boy.
Windows is only in use for about 30% of the worlds servers. The rest is mainly UNIX + Linux.
Can I see your source?
“Windows is only in use for about 30% of the worlds servers. The rest is mainly UNIX + Linux.”
Doing this kind of comparison is kinda difficult, i mean: how do you count servers?
An IBM z or i5 should count as a Dell x86 entry level server or should be better correct the exteem by taking in account the price, not only the unit number?
A partitioned mainframe with n machines should count 1, n or ?
A linux system that may be converted from desktop use to server use with rather simple installation tools count as a server or not?
Googling around I found two reference that try to do such an exteem: one is of august 2005 form IDC http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS00223005 and talk about Windows at 33,5% (seem speaking about value, so numbers are corrected by the price), another older new (2001!) from IDC http://news.com.com/2100-1001-959049.html?tag=cd_mh says Windows is at 49% in numbers with an increasing trend.
Well, it’s not easy to answer “what is the market share of ‘xyz’ in server market”!
Windows is only in use for about 30% of the worlds servers. The rest is mainly UNIX + Linux.
How can i find out whether that is true?
Here you go
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/03/06/march_2006_web_server_…
By what reasoning did you come to that conclusion?
because they want that 10% and they want lawsuits to continue because they know its getting hard for programmers to do their job without fear that something they typed hasn’t already been typed and copyrighted by someone else.
Copyright’s not a major concern unless you switch jobs a fair bit, and then the concern is really trade secrets more than copyright.
It’s patents that are a concern.
Talk about wasting money! Like the article says, GPL is a license like any other (as far as the definition of license goes), not a contract. If you don’t like it, no one forces you to use it.
It reminds me of people who somehow obtain money and start out in the business world. They think that because they’re the money holder, that they get to choose how things are done. It’s a two way street. No one has to accept your money or do what you say. In contract, you can accept what the other party is offering or leave it. You can’t force their hand.
“If you don’t like it, no one forces you to use it.”
That just isn’t true if by “it” you mean the license. If you use GPL’d stuff you HAVE to use the GPL whether you agree with it or not. Not that I agree with the guy bring the lawsuit either.
Nobody forces you to use GPL’ed software, nor to modify or distribute it.
[EDITED: Fixed a typo]
Edited 2006-03-23 15:00
No they don’t…if you use Windows. If you use Linux, you pretty much have to use GPL’d stuff. That isn’t the issue and nobody is arguing if you “use” it.
Maybe you have to use GPL-d stuff in linux(as in software you use), but if you write software that should work on linux you’re not obligated to put your work under the GPL, unless you use code from a software piece that is under the GPL, but well, in exchange you get free programmers. The other options are: you pay to use some software piece (i.e you get another licence). Or you use software that’s under the BSD-licence or…
The gpl is only here because otherwise companies would abuse software that is freely available for anyone to use, without giving anything back.
The gpl is only here because otherwise companies would abuse software that is freely available for anyone to use, without giving anything back.
Not giving back is not “abuse.” It might not be fair, respectful treatment, but they’re not reaching out and stopping anybody from using the original open source code, just their own work.
“Not giving back is not “abuse.””
Actually it is , you abuse the system in order to be the only one to profit from it. Open Source is having the source code at all time , otherwise its not really Open Source its shared source. Note : the politically motivated and bought OSI does not define Open Source that way.
“but they’re not reaching out and stopping anybody from using the original open source code”
There is no original or derivative in real Open Source , only thief liar and traitor believe otherwise. ( No its not a troll its the name used to describe those actions , come up with a better one and I will use it ).
“just their own work.”
It snot there own , but the law as not yet caught up with this arming of evolution and thievery.
BTW all the above is my personnal opinion based on more then 30 years of history in the software industry.
> Not giving back is not “abuse.” It might not be fair,
> respectful treatment, but they’re not reaching out and
> stopping anybody from using the original open source
> code, just their own work.
What is “fair use” and what is “abuse” is mostly decided by the author. He/she should then choose an appropriate license to protect his/her decision. The whole discussion whether it’s fair or unfair to take other’s code and give nothing back but a tiny mentioning of the original author is moot. What is unfair is to do things the original author didn’t want you to do with the code, especially if he/she tried to protect himself/herself by a license and you defeated the license in court.
Therefore I think this court ruling is very good, because it gives authors another tool to express their intentions in a legally binding way.
Not giving back is not “abuse.” It might not be fair, respectful treatment, but they’re not reaching out and stopping anybody from using the original open source code, just their own work.
I guess that depends on how you define ‘abuse’. If they are using someone else’s copyrighted code in a way that breaches the terms of the license, and assuming the license is fair (depending on how you define ‘fair’), then I think this could reasonably be called ‘abuse’.
However if we are not to consider breach of the GPL to be abuse, then neither should we consider breach of commercial licenses to be abuse.
Software companies often try to convey the perception that making a copy of their copyrighted material is like stealing money out of their hands. In reality, the connection between copying commercial software and companies missing out on money is much less direct, and in some ways analogous to the situation with GPL projects.
If I were to copy a program that I wouldn’t have paid for anyway (say I simply can’t afford it), then the software company hasn’t missed out on a sale that they otherwise would have had. But it could undermine the system, discouraging others from paying for the program that they otherwise might have paid for.
Likewise, if I were to make a work derived from GPL code, and not give back the source code for my changes, I might not be harming the project directly, but I could still be harming it indirectly, by undermining the system.
It’s easier to to use the oversimplificiation that copying is theft in the case of commercial software than in the case of GPL software (“But how can I steal something that’s free?”), although it’s no more or less true. So another term is needed, and I think the word ‘abuse’ probably works ok.
Since companies could take a bunch of *someone else’s work*, make some stupid changes (if any) and make money off the back of other people, it would well be abuse.
That’s exactly what happens with the BSD licensed code: company A takes a free BSD system (kernel + userland), places its product on it (maybe tuning only some cosmetic feature of a pre-existing bsd product), and puts an “Enterprise Ultra HyperNifty Product”(tm) label on it.
They have a product only thanks to the work of a lot of other people. And they can get all this for free, without giving back anything.
That’s just not fair, IMO
You miss the point. The GPL has no provisions regarding “use” of the code, whether it’s use of the program binaries or the source code, as long as no redistribution is involved. That’s because the GPL is an extension to copyright law, and therefore only concerns itself with copying and redistribution.
So you don’t have to abide by the GPL if you use GPLed software, simply because there are no conditions to abide to regarding use of the software. If you redistribute the software, however, and only if you redistribute it, then you have to abide by the GPL. Not doing so would be considered copyright infringement.
The GPL does not restrict your right to use software at all, unlike most EULAs. The majority of EULAs restrict what you can do with the copyrighted material you are using. The GPL actually grants you additional rights – it allows you to redistribute and modify the software (things you would normally not be able to do) provided you follow a few simple rules.
So, if you don’t like the GPL, then you are free to just not exercise the additional rights it provides, and pretend that the software was distributed with standard copyright.
That just isn’t true if by “it” you mean the license. If you use GPL’d stuff you HAVE to use the GPL whether you agree with it or not. Not that I agree with the guy bring the lawsuit either.
There is a simple way around that. Don’t base your code on GPL software. Most other licenses don’t even grant you the right to look at the code, nevermind modify it. You can always reimplement code, or use BSD licensed software. Let us not forget that the GPL grants you additional rights compared to standard software licenses. You can’t really complain that they don’t allow you to rip their software off and then sell it as proprietary software.
If you use GPL’d stuff you HAVE to use the GPL whether you agree with it or not.
Yes, if you want to use licensed software, you have to agree to the license. Why do people keep saying this like it means something?
that if you use Microsoft software, you don’t have to abide by the license.
Yes, if you want to use licensed software, you have to agree to the license.
Actually, you don’t. The GPL covers redistribution, not use. It provides additional rights you normally wouldn’t have under copyright law.
It is not clear if a “license to use” (i.e. a EULA, which is not really a license at all), which seeks to restricts rights you normally have, is in fact legal or not. In most countries, and most states in the U.S., it probably isn’t.
Gee, sorry, if you want to use licensed code, you have to agree to the license.
Code and software are different beasts, please dont confuse things mixing them.
Using code means extending, modifying, or basing your product on pre-existing code.
Using software means running the program.
And you can USE a gpl licensed software WITHOUT agreeing to a single bit of it. Try to read it, maybe.
Well, you really love to nitpick around here, so let me try this one more time:
If you want to make use of (modify, base more code upon, etc.) copyrighted code, you will have to take into account what license you will be able to use on your modified/based upon/et cetera code, should you wish to redistribute it. In that sense, the GPL is no different than any other copyright license.
p.s. If you want to nitpick on the nitpicking statement, I’m just saying I believe the intent of my original post was clear, and so being, the simplicity of the statement was more important than its absolute accuracy. If you don’t buy that, notice how the more accurate, reconfigured statement with the same intent doesn’t really work as a response to the post I originally replied to. preposition, done
The GPL is not the only license out there. Plus a license in itself isn’t a monoply it’s the people who use it and the GPL is one of MANY OSS licenses.
So everyone and NOT ONE company decided to use that type of contracting scheme (It’s used in more the 50 percent of the overall market now) doesn’t constitute a monopoly.
Also isn’t price fixing when the price is raised???
Funny, if this ‘frontman’ would win that the government actually relies on OSS quite a bit.
Edited 2006-03-23 14:25
Also isn’t price fixing when the price is raised???
You can have price fixing agreements that will create an artificially high price, better known as a cartel, but in this context they mean artificially lowering the price to drive competetors out of business, also called price dumping. Both forms of price fixing are illegal in the EU, I’m not sure about the US.
The lawsuit isn’t as dumb as most people here make it out to be by the way. It is conceivable that companies could come together and decide to dump their code on the market for free and doing so drive key competitors out of business. Where is all comes crashing down is that he has to prove premeditation and agreements between the involved companies (the contract, combination or conspiracy spoken of in the summary). Of course there is none in this case.
I think that, in order to be considered dumping, the selling price also has to be lower than the manufacturing costs (IIRC). Of course, since software costs nothing to manufacture, it’s really hard to enforce dumping laws for them.
I think that, in order to be considered dumping, the selling price also has to be lower than the manufacturing costs (IIRC).
Yes you have to sell at a loss. That’s no longer as clear cut as it used to be though with many tech companies having several “loss leader” products and making money on related products (consoles and games, cell phones and providers,…) Where do you draw the line ?
Of course, since software costs nothing to manufacture, it’s really hard to enforce dumping laws for them.
You could work out a formula with development costs, planned life of the software and projected revenue during that period, but I agree it’s hard work. I suspect a lot of big companies work this out internally though because it’s good planning from a business standpoint.
> The lawsuit isn’t as dumb as most people here make it
> out to be by the way. It is conceivable that companies
> could come together and decide to dump their code on
> the market for free and doing so drive key competitors
> out of business.
Is this really an issue of the GPL? I think the same or even stronger effect could be achieved by placing the software under BSD/MIT license or in the public domain.
That ‘s great 🙂
Yipeee !
SCO says the GPL violates the US Constitution:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/27/HNscoenforce_1.html
I don’t guess this is the first time SCO is (or will be) wrong. This does, however, set a precedence in the US saying that the GPL is a valid license enforceable by law.
From what I understand, the GPL has held in the US and German court system.
Support the gpl violations project: http://gpl-violations.org/
First, they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win
“First they ignore you,
then they ridicule you,
then they fight you,
then you win.”
~Mahatma Gandhi
Thanks for the accurate expansion of that. Power to the people right on!
… GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation.
This seems so blatently obvious that it’s difficult to imagine how anyone would go to court to challenge it. Of course courts sometimes enforce really perverse logic, but this time the good guys won. Let freedom ring!
Impressive how stupid some paranoids can be…
…but it doesn’t matter! I just hope nobody has patented this story for a movie yet! <hurry />
>>Maybe you have to use GPL-d stuff in linux(as in software you use), but if you write software that should work on linux you’re not obligated to put your work under the GPL,
Correct. There’s several pieces of software for Linux that isn’t GPL. (A few financial programs and artwork in distros come to mind)
No, you don’t, not if you don’t redistribute it.
Copyright law makes a clear distinction between use of copyrighted material, and its redistribution.