"ZnU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
This argument would be persuasive if judges were the legal equivalent of
strictly-validating XML parsers, required to reject entire documents if
portions of them were invalid). But this is not, in fact, the case.
While I don't consider this outcome particularly likely, there is
absolutely no reason why a judge couldn't, in principle, find that GPL
validly granted permission to redistribute, but that (say) the provision
requiring code disclosure for derivative works was invalid.
The JMRI case seems to have framed this issue in an environment where the
parties seem moved to fight it out to a conclusion. Although the software
is not GPL, I think that it only differs in degree of demand on the
licensee. It should go a long way in resolving the issues in the GPL.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
