Hi, On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 04:37:25 +0100 Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://dansguardian.org/?page=copyright2 > > I read that as "your friend can download it for non-commercial use & > then distribute it to you for free under the GPL for you to use for > commercial purposes". I don't agree. In my opinion the legal status of this document is that it carries two licences but no option to freely chose between them if you're using it commercially. It's GPLed only in a non-commercial context. You'd need a lawyer (most probably this isn't enough, you'd need a court and a judge's decision instead) to exactly analyze the clause and it's problematic "upon downloading" clause. It says "GPL"ed (and even has some mentioning of RMS) but it isn't clearly GPL, though. In the mentioned way to circumvent the license, there's the question if - redistributing to another (commercial) party is "relicencing" (only the author - or holder of copyright in other countries' laws - can do this) - the "GPL" really is a GPL here. -hwh -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
