decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
OT -- Judge Easterbrook (apparently) mispeaks | 221 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT -- Judge Easterbrook (apparently) mispeaks
Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 08:56 AM EDT
Just to be clear, when you say "same license (or newer)" that
"newer" can only be for YOUR contribution, not the collective
works. I couldn't take an existing GPLv2 pure distro (Fedora
or Slackware perhaps? ie with no non-GPL components), rework
it, say replacing KDE with a "ScottVision" interface and
release a "ScottWare" distro under GPLv3.

---
Scott
-------------------------
LINUX - VISIBLY superior!
--------------------------------------

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

OT -- Judge Easterbrook (apparently) mispeaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 09:14 AM EDT
Sure, You are allowed to sell and get big bucks for the first copy of your
derivative work but any price above the cost of distribution would soon be too
high to compete in an easily formed market where everyone/anyone can copy the
work with physical reproduction costs being the only expense.
Maybe a software that is highly desirable by a very small number of customers
would support a price above the cost of reproducing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

OT -- Judge Easterbrook (apparently) mispeaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 10:12 AM EDT
I think you're right, he seems to be confusing "libre" with
"gratis". It's not important to the point he was making,
which is that the GPL is a license, not a contract, so the
recipient of the covered software is bound by the GPL
whether or not he wishes to accept it.

Another commenter here correctly points out that the GPL
puts an economic limit on one's margins when selling the
code - it eliminates a major barrier to competitors seeking
a piece of your market (namely, they don't have to write
their own code, they can just use yours). That doesn't make
sales impossible (especially since your own cost of
acquiring the software may be very low) - just ask Red Hat.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

s/sell/distribute/
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT
The judge does not get it.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )