| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Sometimes court can declare PART of the license "null and void"Sometimes court can declare PART of the license "null and void"Posted Dec 12, 2008 17:04 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Yes it's the case by jamesh Parent article: Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations
For example if your license demands that you'll chop your hand before you'll start using the program court will usually say it's "unreasonable demand" and THIS PART of the license will be declared null and void (but the license as whole will still be valid). But in reality this rarely happen: usually some part of the license can be voided only when license contains requirements which are specifically forbidden by some law.
(Log in to post comments)
in which case you still don't have a license Posted Dec 14, 2008 1:04 UTC (Sun) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
Even if the GPL said you can only distribute this software if you do something illegal, you still wouldn't be able to distribute the software:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. (§7, GPLv2)
in which case you still don't have a license Posted Dec 16, 2008 6:54 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
Is that legal advice? You are a lawyer?
rhetorical questions Posted Jan 9, 2009 0:50 UTC (Fri) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
Sorry I forgot to add "IANAL" until after I'd already posted that comment (LWN doesn't have a comment edit facility).
I'm not sure what k8to means by the question "is that legal advice", but I believe the answer is fairly obvious for most meanings even without the IANAL disclaimer. I think points can be made more clearly without rhetorical questions such as the above; it actually comes across a bit sarcastic, which is not conducive to helpful discussion.
|
|
||||||||||||