Rjack wrote:
The great debate on the software blogs about TomTom violating the GPL is sheer
nonsense of the same caliber as Eben Moglen's nonsense about a copyright
license not being a contract.
'The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd
code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs'
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/lu-12.html
'If this argument were valid, no copyright license could permit a
licensee to make multiple copies of a licensed program. That would make
not just the GPL "illegal": Heise's supposed theory would also
invalidate the BSD, Apache, AFL, OSL, MIT/X11, and all other free
software licenses'
http://news.cnet.com/Putting-the-GPL-on-trial/2010-1071_3-5065289.html
The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral permission,
in which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor.
Copyright holders of computer programs are given, by the Copyright Act,
exclusive right to copy, modify and redistribute their programs. The
GPL, reduced to its essence, says:
'You may copy, modify and redistribute this software, whether modified
or unmodified, freely. But if you redistribute it, in modified or
unmodified form, your permission extends only to distribution under the
terms of this license. If you violate the terms of this license, all
permission is withdrawn.'
http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
