On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > GPL-incompatible
http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html ("We paid the FSF to have them provide us these answers. So these answers are verified correct by people like FSF lawyer and law professor Eben Moglen.") ---- Question: Can someone for example distribute 1. GStreamer, the LGPL library 2. Totem, a GPL playback application 3. The binary-only Sorenson decoder together in one distribution/operating system ? If not, what needs to be changed to make this possible ? Answer: This would be a problem, because the GStreamer and Totem licenses would forbid it. In order to link GStreamer to Totem, you need to use section 3 of the LGPL to convert GStreamer to GPL. ---- I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having section 3 of the LGPL. > >>>> words-to-avoid > > http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-17.pdf > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consumer > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty > > Did I miss something (more words-to-avoid)? "The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example of a computer program that has been developed using the free software model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, well, well. See above. Now, (also quoting FSF's brief) "See LucasArts Entertainment Company vs. Humongous Entertainment Company against licensee who claimed that license provision regulating resale prices for derivative works violated the Sherman Act)." Does anyone have a link? All I could find is this: ---- In the intellectual property context, however, one federal court held that the Cartwright Act did not prohibit, under the per se rule or otherwise, a provision in a software licensing agreement which prohibited the licensee from selling the licensed program at less than a certain price to anyone other than the licensor. LucasArts Entertainment Co. v. Humongous Entertainment Co., 870 F. Supp. 285 (N.D. Cal. 1993). The court relied on a federal decision, United States v. General Electric, 272 U.S. 476 (1926), which held that patent owners had the power to restrict prices at which licensees sold. Although the General Electric case has not been overruled, its continuing validity is questionable, as the United States Supreme Court has twice split four to four on whether to overrule it and the federal enforcement authorities decline to follow it. ---- And ---- The GE ruling on price-fixing has been heavily qualified but never overruled. Any deviation from the GE-Westinghouse single- manufacturing-licensee paradigm is virtually certain to be held an antitrust violation (and therefore misuse as well). Thus, cross- licenses with price restrictions are illegal. So, too, are licenses to more than one licensee, which, in effect, put together a price-fixing combination among licensees. The Supreme Court has twice divided 4-4 on whether to overrule GE. United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287 (1948); United States v. Huck Mfg. Co., 382 U.S. 197 (1965). The Antitrust Division has for years searched for a vehicle to overturn GE but has never succeeded in getting a candidate to hold still long enough to grab it. See ABA, Antitrust Law Developments 3d 822 & nn. 167-68. ---- I gather that Wallace might be DOJ's secret agent... ;-) regards, alexander.
