Open source Free software 2617

Alexander Terekhov

Just in case you (like Mr. GNU President himself1) are unable to read PDFs: (quoting from that section of 794 memorandum)

------- ... per se illegal under anbreastrust law. NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128, 133 (1998); United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 218 (1940).

In addition to its inapplicability shown above, Section 2 (the only GPL provision requiring licensing ãat no chargeä) is illegal and unenforceable. The general counsel for the Open Source Initiative acknowledges in his recent treatise: ãThere is also a problem that may prevent enforcement of the GPLâs ãat no chargeä provision. It may be an illegal restraint of trade in some countries. Ordinarily, companies are allowed to set their own prices, and it is improper for a GPL licensor to restrain that any way.ä L. Rosen, Open Source Licensing 132 (2004), available at 0131487876ch06.pdf.

It is a ãwell settled principle that where a contract is susceptible of two interpretations, preference will be given to the interpretation which does not violate the law.ä Bd. of Dirs. And Officers, Forbes Fed. Credit Union v. Natâl Credit Union Admin., 477 F.2d 777, 784 (10th Cir. 1973); accord NLRB v. Local 32B-32J Serv. Employees Intâl Union, 353 F.3d 197, 202 (2d Cir. 2003); Guthart v. White, 263 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the Court should not construe the GPL as IBM suggests. -------

(SCO laying an ambush for the GPL?)

regards, alexander.