Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Says GPL is a Price-Fixing Scheme
Soko writes "Yes, it's real. The crack team of Daniel Wallace and Maureen O'Gara have ganged up once again to protect their version of "The American Dream," he by filing a lawsuit in Indiana court saying the GPL is nothing more than a price fixing scheme designed to drive software vendors out of business, she by parroting the proprietary vendors' "The GPL kills business" mantra (as well as a few well placed insults at the free software community). I found the story on Groklaw - no links to Ms. O'Gara or Mr. Wallace from me. I'm still kind of dumbfounded at the audacity of Mr. Wallace, but wonder if he has an angle that might have a slim chance of prevailing." This Google search reveals some of Daniel Wallace's views on the GPL.
What will they say next? Using FOSS contributes to global terrorism? That everytime you download FOSS, the drug cartels profit? That FOSS consitiutes violates RICO laws?
Price fixing my foot!
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I always thought that the idea of a price-fixing scheme was to drive prices *up*. What they have said makes absolutely no sense. Free software is causing prices to go up? I think not...
If anything, free software drives prices down (remember when IE was released for free, while Netscape was still selling for $30?). Oh, the commercial software industry is dying too. Then why is Windows still the most popular operating system in existance?
It has nothing to do with reason.
It has nothing to do with justice.
It has nothing to do with quality and or merits.
It has nothing to do with "who deserves to win".
If not SCO, then someone else will win. It will be the stupidest ruling in the history of law, no doubt, but somehow it will win. IBM on our side or not. I am not a troll, though it should be obvious I'm far from being an optimist.
I hope I am wrong.
All that said, does it suprise you that with SCO being an embarrassment, that Microsoft would start up a few other legal experiments? They no doubt have people whose sole job is to dream up possible litigation, and we can expect 1-3 of these things per year, until one succeeds or they run out of money. Guess which one will happen first.
Really now, how does the GPL fix prices when it allows anyone to charge any amount of money for GPL software?
Take off every sig. For great justice.
but wonder if he has an angle that might have a slim chance of prevailing
Put any issue like this in a court, especially in front of a jury, especially in America, and literally anything can happen, regardless of the lawyers or facts on either side.
Juries will do what they think is justice based upon what they think they understand.
Saying that SCO's case is lost, or this one would not stand a chance is simply not legitimate. Many experienced legal commentators seem to tend to give either side in just about any major case a 50-50 chance of winning. That is why the smartest thing you can do is to figure out how to stay out of court, unless you are evil and rich and like injustice. Over the long haul it may get corrected, but the courtroom is a roll of the dice.
That is also probably why jury-tried issues carry little if any weight as legal precedence. While it would be very incorrect to say that the facts are irrelevant, it would also be very incorrect to say that they will carry the day or that this or any other issue could not be won in court, especially before a jury.
No, don't do that, otherwise, you'll be spreading the image of free software advocates as harrassing nutcases. What would this accomplish? Do you think that your comment will be the one that changes his mind, the one that causes him to turn from the dark side? Your time would be better spent advocating free software instead of attacking people who don't.
Also, is it so hard to imagine that you would be sued by this guy for harassment?
You realize, sarcasm apart, that this "price fixing" or "unfair competition" is exactly what all of the TelCo's and the Wireless carriers are claiming about municipal WiFi efforts...
It's sad that corporations think that they deserve special favors, or believe that they will receive them for the right price...
oh wait, they believe it because it happens...
Not very much.
When everybody has a compiler, what is your bland piece of software worth?
Not very much.
Without entering into whether or not it's right, the GPL definitely raises the bar on what makes a marketable piece of software. I think the everybody-owns-the-factory analogy is pretty appropriate.
Once upon a time, people made a living by delivering ice to your home. Now we have freezers and make our own ice. What kind of money can you make delivering ice?
Not very much.
Does that mean you should attack the freezer manufacturers or does it mean you should find a better way of doing business?
Apparently, the answer to that question will be decided in a court of law rather than the court of common sense.
If you're a developer, and you release a useful project under the GPL, chances are you'll get patches back that'll teach you a think or two.
Happened to me today, in fact.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
You know what gets me...
Is that companies who back these kind of ideas are the same ones who will outsource your job to save a buck. In a SECOND.
So they cry when anybody taps their market (be it VOIP, FOSS, or whatnot), and they lobby for laws to *protect* their business. Yet they have no problems doing this to PEOPLE.
Companies HAVE a responsibility to their customers, and the cities/towns/COUNTRIES they do business it. They should be MADE to give back instead of just taking taking taking.
I'm tired of hearing stuff about "well it's their coumpany and they can do what they want." This way of thinking is really wrong, IMHO, and is just a symptom of how they have brainwashed everyone. Morality doesn't seem to exist in the corporate world, everything is for the blind pursuit of profit... generally by crawling up the backs of hard working people, then kicking them down when they reach the summit.
Pure capitalism is faulty, somebody needs to reign these greedy people in. It'd be nice if someone could pull the wool back up, from over the general public's eyes.
this all makes me so bloody angry.
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
No, it's volunteerism. It would be communism if you forced others to use GPL'd code. But they don't have to.
It's like giving away a cake with its recipe, but then saying that if anyone else wanted to sell the cake, they had to give away the recipe with the cake.
As you can surely recall, the first cookbooks swiftly destroyed the restaurant and food service industries.
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
Free software isn't free until it's been written. Charge for your labor and you don't need to exert control over users afterward. Doctors and plumbers don't expect to do their job just once and then kick back and cash checks for the rest of their lives.
- nobody is forced to work on gpl'd software
- nobody is forcing anyone to try to make a living directly from gpl code
- people don't necessarily write code and release it under the gpl to make money
- some people WILL "do the right thing", by giving something of value back to the author
If you read the law suit, you'd have seen that the guy is complaining that he can't make a living programming because he can't compete with the price of free software, that the gpl is a "price restraint scheme".part of the "deal" behind using gpl code in your product, instead of developing it from scratch, is the value of you not having to develop it from scratch
there are other ways to add value. Or you can work with proprietary code - oh, no you can't - you don't have the source.
perhaps they are using the code in-house, and see the benefit of getting the "many eyes" of others working on it, saving their company money in the process
this can be code improvements, bug reports, etc. Its not always about money
This is utter bs. There is nothing preventing him from writing closed software. Of course, he'll have to have licenses for any libraries he uses/buys, etc., (or is he going to complain that requiring a license for closed-source libraries *also* prevents him from competing, since the copyright holder of closed-source libraries can charge any price they want ...)
Strange how all these attacks on the gpl, groklaw, etc., come just as LongHorn totally fails to wow everyone. Coincidence? Probably not.
That's called DUMPING, and it's against the law. He also claims, also correctly, that the FSF engages in price fixing by getting multiple vendors to agree to give their products away for free. The is anti-competitive, because it prevents other vendors who don't want to give their products away for free from entering the market.
Can you please cite statutes?
The only ones mentioned in the case are a jurisdictional one and one about remedies (15 USC 25 I think). None of the sections the latter mentions as applicable has anything that I can tell these people are violating...
It is good for business because ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES BESIDES THE PRODUCING INDUSTRY BENEFIT. With virtually free gasoline practically every product you buy will cost less. Software is a little like gasoline to many industries. Free software is a free public good that is non-scarce and infinitely divisible.
Is it good for the programmer job market? No. Tough titties, it's good for everybody else. Yours isn't the first industry to be decimated by progress.
I find it weird that Americans are so "anti-communism" as if its an evil thing. It's not that bad at all! Of course, I personally don't think it would be the best way to solve the problem of unlimited wants and needs with limited resources. Software is a bit different because it can be duplicated an unlimited number of times for next to no cost.
Anyway, lets look at it:
-OSS: Its communism because everyone works on it for nothing! ner ner.
-Proprietary: Its communism because its all designed from the middle and given to the masses even though they may not like it and have no control of it. ner ner...
I am Australian but I have lived in the US for 6 months and I discovered that the US is unbelievably capitalist with a huge FEAR of anything socialist. Here in Oz, we have a mixed economy that is predominately market but has some socialist aspects such as unlimited welfare (the dole) and free health care (medicare). It think its a good balance.
Anyway, my point is that we should have a BALANCE of OSS and proprietary software.
Can your karma go above being Excellent?
Why shouldn't municipal governments provide wi-fi? Internet access has become an important service, and is there some part of the US, Canadian or any other Constitution that I'm unaware of which guarantees "profit and unending dividends for all [businesses]"? The economy should serve society, not the other way around. Cities don't just decide to offer these services without a mandate from their residents, and if residents of a city want municipal wi-fi, some telco should certainly not be able to over-rule that just because their profits are at risk!
It's not the "nanny-state", it's democracy. What it damn well shouldn't be is corporatocracy.
Freedom: "I won't!"
In what nanny-state, commie pipe dream is it the government's responsibility to provide internet access to people who can almost certainly get it cheapy from commercial ISPs?
You got it backwards. When a town votes and decides to turn certain services like Internet access over to a public utility, that's called "democracy". Perhaps you have heard of it.
When the state government comes in and negates the will of the voters in some corrupt scheme to help commercial campaign contributors to make more money, that's "real communism" (i.e., corrupt, centralized government).
What's particularly entertaining about the OSS community is they use examples like this to push the idea that OSS avoids duplicating work and reinventing the wheel...
...Yet 90%+ of the OSS software out there is nothing more than a duplication of other OSS software.
It would be communism if you forced others to use GPL'd code.
Communism != totalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarism
Hi, communism is the revolutionary theory of marxism. Marxism is a rather complicated theory involving a notion called dialectical materialism. This has fuck all to do with the GPL. The GPL is one thing, and one thing only: sharing. Nothing to do with communism or marxism. But then again, this is Slashdot, where you can equate apples with oranges and get bananas, and that is 'insightful'.
?-|||-----x<*))))><
the GPL is nothing more than a price fixing scheme
Actually, it's not the GPL which is a price fixing scheme, but copyright. As in copyright allows the author to set any price they want to license their work. Somehow I don't think Wallace, O'Gara, and countless others quite understand this simple fact (or are not willing to admit it, as this pseudo-monopolistic characteristic of copyright seems to fly in the face of other free market ideals).
The GPL actually removes this restriction by allowing a copyrighted work to be licensed for any amount of money desired by any party with a copy of the work. Zero just happens to be the most typical number, for the practical reason that it is difficult to get customers to pay exorbitant sums for what is usually available elsewhere for free.
Heh, maybe we should just abolish copyright and remove this restraint of trade in all cases. This way anyone could license any work created by anyone else for however much they thought they could get, though this probably isn't the type of "solution" the software industry has in mind.
The ultimate plays for Madden 2006
when communism becomes evil is when it is compulsory. A point you seem to have missed widely.
No one gives a shit what you CHOOSE to do for a hobby, who you CHOOSE give the results to, or if you CHOOSE to run off and live on a commune with River Moonchild and a bunch of other random hippies.
It's when you demand under threat of violence (usually via government) that I do these things that we have a very, very big problem.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
ya, i think they call that "competition". even when software is free, competition fosters improvement.
I'm not against the Libre software movement, but I genuinely believe that the 'gratis' software movement is screwing things up for all of us.
Um, the former implies the latter. And your main point is just spectacularly wrong. Imagine a world where Apache, Linux, Java, Perl, Python, MySQL and all similar "gratis" software never came into being. If you want to run a web site, you have to pay thousands of dollars for the software just to get started. Will the demand for programmers be more or less than in our world? Hint: not more.
And even if free software somehow were harmful to programmers, opposing it on that basis alone is profoundly immoral, as it's an unquestionable benefit to everyone else. It would be the equivalent of candlemakers sabotaging light bulb factories to keep their jobs
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Section 2B of the GPL:
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.
Seems to my inexperienced legal eye that the GPL does, in fact, force me to give away my software for free.
You're suffering from BSA brainwashing, I think. You see, the GPL only deals with copyright as defined by law, and there is nothing in copyright law that supports the concept of a "license to use". The ONLY kind of license copyright law, and the GPL, deals with is a license to copy and distribute (aka publishing).
You can sell GPLed software for any price you like (within the bounds of law, anyway, so no "first-born" or "female virgin sex-slaves"), even if you didn't write it. What that clause means is that IF you find someone willing to pay your price you may not CHARGE EXTRA for the rights to republish said GPLed software.
Your mistake is in thinking that EULAs have any basis in copyright law. Again, there is no such thing in copyright law as an "end user license".
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
"Actually, Communism is evil. Not evil in the trying to kill you way, evil in the I know what's right better than you way."
:-)
So if a country invades other countries and brings them democracy because it is better for them... they are communists?
GPL was created outside the idea of a "market", and its original focus was on individuals, and there right to code as a form of "libre" speech and expression - not as a product made by partnerships, proprietorships or corporations.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."