[Solar-general] The GPL tested in US courts - Wallace Vs FSF.

[Gerardo Diaz]

uh!

mirá vos

recién visité la página que mandó Criado y me encontré con esto que no
sé si circuló por acá (me parece que no)

Traduzco libremente el párrafo que me pareció más interesante:

"El lunes una corte federal norteamericana descartó el caso de Daniel
Wallace diciendo que la GPL actúa de forma que algunos softwares
puedan ser copiados, modificados y distribuídos sin violar la
protección de derecho de autor. Por lo tanto la GPL alienta más que
desalienta la libre competencia y distribución de sistemas operativos
de computadoras, pasando los beneficios directamente a los
consumidores. Esos beneficios incluyen menores precios, mejor acceso y
mayor innovación" (*)

Es interesante porque eso es lo que entendió el juez John Danile Tinder

--
http://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf

The GPL tested in US courts - Wallace Vs FSF.  The GNU General Public
License stands firm.On Monday March 20, 2006 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 (GPL)
constituted a contract, combination or conspiracy; that it created an
unreasonable restraint of trade; and that the FSF conspired with IBM,
Red Hat Inc., Novell and other individuals to pool and cross-license
their copyrighted intellectual property in a predatory price fixing
scheme.

Peter Brown, FSF Executive Director, responded to the news, "As the
author of the GPL and copyright holder on the largest body of GPL'd
covered free software, the FSF hears many theories of potential legal
claims and challenges to the GPL. We hear the fear, uncertainty and
doubt (FUD) expressed, that the GPL has never been tested in court,
and that somehow that is a sign of its weakness. Nothing could be
further from the truth of course. Put quite simply, if you don't
accept the terms of the GPL, then you have no rights to the
copyrighted works it covers. What is there left to test? The GPL is a
software license, it is not a contract. It gives permissions from the
copyright holder. You don't want to accept those permissions? End of
discussion."

(*)
On Monday, a US Federal Court Judge dismissed Daniel Wallace's case
saying "[The GPL] acts as a means by which certain software may be
copied, modified and redistributed without violating the software's
copyright protection. As such, the 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."

Brown continued, "Let us all stop and consider the consequences of
what this US Federal Judge has said. On being presented with the facts
surrounding the GPL, he was able to define a range of benefits
available to those that value the freedoms delivered by the GPL. The
question we are all left with is, why would anyone put up with the
inferred consequences of proprietary software?", and, "If you care
about lower prices, better access to software, or more innovation,
then GPL'd software is for you. Or as the Free Software would describe
that, you value freedom".

Having dismissed the case, and finding in favor of the FSF and against
Wallace, the Judge also allowed FSF costs against Wallace. Wallace now
has thirty days to appeal the decision, but the FSF expects no further
meaningful news on the matter.


--
Gerardo Díaz
gerardo.diaz en gmail.com
(15) 5132 1507