This came up in a local LUG ML I participate in ( http://www.sgvlug.org )
recently:
Does the GPL as written (Vers. 2) allow a distributor of a modified software
to impose a *use* restriction on users? At first, I thought, No way!, but
I see the other guy's point ...
Section 0, says in part:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 02:01 AM, Terry Hancock wrote:
Does the GPL as written (Vers. 2) allow a distributor of a modified
software
to impose a *use* restriction on users? At first, I thought, No
way!, but
I see the other guy's point ...
Iff the law were to allow such
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 11:01:52PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
Does section 6 guarantee that the usage right is kept, or is it somehow
guaranteed in law, or is there another section which addresses this (I've
looked of course, but didn't see anything that seems to do it).
Hmm. Thinking
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 02:56 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL doesn't remove my right to sign a contract promising not to do
something, and I believe this is a commonplace and legitimate--if
annoying--practice that the GPL supports: companies can have employees
sign NDAs, preventing
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As for relevance to Debian, can one assume that the GPL absolutely
guarantees
DFSG free? (As I'm pretty sure the DFSG *does* guarantee me this
right).
No. Patents can get in your way. We have GPL software (e.g.,
gimp-nonfree, due to Unisys patents
5 matches
Mail list logo