Hmm... I would not uncritically accept the principle that no matter what a 
licensor says in her license,  a licensee must follow the restriction 
because of an assumption that it is legally enforceable.  The rub -- no 
doubt -- is that one must be careful not to ignore the terms of a license 
at the same time as one is aware of  the tension created between this 
default rule and the subjectivity involved in choosing not to follow terms 
that seem unworkable. For example, most end-users, who never bothered to 
read their software license in the first place, were said to routinely 
violate proprietary license terms in the early 1990's that prohibited 
making a second copy of the program disk of a software application (for 
backup, archive, or any other purpose).  I never read that anyone of those 
end-users, including myself, became defendants in a legal dispute brought 
by the licensor.  Hence, my point that some aspect of our discussion is 
purely academic.


Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.

...... Original Message .......
On Wed,  9 Jun 2004 22:32:52 -0400 "No Spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's not entirely academic what do you with your legal copy of a program 
in the darkness of your room... :-) after all, what if "you" were legal 
corporation or entity, using it for your "private" use and making money 
from it?
>The GPL doesn't care.
>The QPL, reflecting Trolltech's concerns, does. Look at 4c and especially 
6c. Obviously they are concerned about companies getting a legal albeit 
free copy, making changes and/or incorporating into their own proprietary 
products and neither releasing the code nor paying them, essentially 
defeating their revenue model.
>Glen Low, Pixelglow Software
>license-discuss archive is at

license-discuss archive is at

Reply via email to