Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Which license are you talking about? The [L]GPL (both 2 and 3)
purports to impose a whole bunch of covenants ("conditions" but
not "conditions precedent") upon licensees. See, for example
http://www.actonline.org/library/GPLv3-Contract-or-Copyright.html
"Accordingly, the FSF drafted Paragraph 4 to require the automatic grant
of a license to all recipients of a covered work if they “convey, or
propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work.” The flaw in this
provision is two-fold. First, Paragraph 4 is a contract term, not a
license term. Because Microsoft and companies like them are not parties
to the contract, they are not bound by it."
This seems like a straw man to me.
This section is not aimed at Microsoft. It is aimed at Novell.
That impacts Microsoft indirectly - it makes companies
like Novell think twice before entering into patent
covenants with them - since such covenants are likely
to conflict with the wish to distribute GPLv3'd software.
Novell /is/ bound by the license - if it distributes GPLv3'd
software.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remove lock to reply.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
