Open Source Weblog

The price fixing claim was originally filed in May 2005 by a Daniel Wallace, who described himself as "educated in the art and science of physics and computer programming", and whose name was well known to readers of Linux news web site comment forums where Wallace - or someone using that name - has engaged in numerous heated debates with open source enthusiasts about the legality of GPL.

His complaint accused the FSF of artificially fixing software prices through the General Public License. "The rapid adoption of the GNU General Public License in schemes to deflate or eliminate the free market valuation of computer programs threatens to diminish or destroy the ability of the Defendant to earn future revenues in the career field of computer programming," it read.

US District Judge John Daniel Tinder has dismissed the claims, however, and ordered Wallace to pay the FSF's costs. In doing so he also made a statement that may very well go down in history as the one that disproved forever the assertion that the GPL has not been tested in court.

"[The GPL] acts as a means by which certain software may be copied, modified and redistributed without violating the software’s copyright protection," he wrote. "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."

Peter Brown, FSF executive director, is certainly overjoyed by the seal of approval. "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," he wrote.

"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."