SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld)
Posted Jul 21, 2003 6:36 UTC (Mon) by
Ross (subscriber, #4065)
In reply to:
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld) by ekj
Parent article:
SCO readies new Linux licensing program (InfoWorld)
Exactly. The GPL is actually stonger than most software licenses
because acceptance is not based upon a button click or you use the
software. It is based upon distribution of the software. If you
didn't agree to the license there is nothing which would allow you
to distribute the software. With the more common "by downloading
this software/by using this software/by clicking accept you agree
to the conditions of the license" arrangement, a user could claim
that the purchase of the software had implied a license to use it
or claim some other reason to use it under fair use.
Of course I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding.
So I too am surprised at the way people continually state that the
GPL is shakey because it is untested. Why don't they say that about
every license?
The other thing which bothers me is the "viral" terminology used by
the supposedly Linux-savvy Slashdot crowd. Is it unreasonable to expect
people to comply with a license when they take code from one program and
insert it into another or when they duplicate and distribute a program?
I don't think so. The fact users are allowed to make and distribute
derivative works at all is an right granted under the GPL which would not
normally exist -- it is not a "viral" burden.
(
Log in to post comments)
