| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SauceSaucePosted Mar 5, 2008 19:08 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165)In reply to: NDISwrapper dodges another bullet by JoeBuck Parent article: NDISwrapper dodges another bullet The same arguments made earlier insisting that a release under the GPL couldn't be retracted would apply equally here: ndiswrapper has been distributed with the kernel and drivers with full awareness of the kernel maintainers, for years. I.e., to withdraw permission now would be much the same as withdrawing permission to redistribute GPLed code. I'm not saying they couldn't withdraw permission. It's just that those whose position comes down on the wishful-thinking side of any argument would argue opposite here as for the previous issue, and even insist there was no contradiction. The canonical reference for wishful thinking is also the Greatest Blog Post Ever.
(Log in to post comments)
Sauce Posted Mar 6, 2008 3:08 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I think you are comparing two different things. One is like changing a contract unilaterarily after it was signed. That's clearly illegal. Another is like installing "no trespass" signs in wrong places. It can be forbidden too, but by another law, and there is no law specifically regulating GPL-only symbols.However, installing "no trespass" signs in improper location would cause people stop paying attention to them, and some trespasser could even argue that the trespass wasn't willful if there were some obviously wrong signs nearby.
|
|
||||||||||||