GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon
Posted Sep 27, 2007 21:54 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata
In reply to: GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon
Parent article: GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon
And because no one can ever [legally] redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL.
While the logic is sound, I don't think it helps at all to eliminate court challenges. The dispute would be: what is this "GPL" that was accepted? There is plenty of room for dispute over what the conditions of the GPL are. What degree of linking to closed-source software is allowed before the conditions cease to be met?
And then there's the question of whether a copyright license was even required. If a loadable kernel module is a derived work of the Linux kernel, then we can safely presume the distributor intended to accept the GPL. If it isn't, the distributor didn't need any license and accepting GPL is meaningless.
Finally, I'd just like to state here that I hate Moglen's terminology "accept" for the license. It makes it sound like a contract, wherein there must be acceptance or there is no contract. As a license exists whether it is accepted or not, I'm sure what he means is that the distributor intended to rely on the GPL.
to post comments)