"Doug Mentohl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
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withdrawn.'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/
That is easy for him to SAY, but he also freely admits "I'm the only lawyer
on earth who can say this, I suppose..." which makes him a very small part
of all the lawyers and judges who might have their own say.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
