| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Wasn't UCITA necessary for the GPL to be legal?Wasn't UCITA necessary for the GPL to be legal?Posted Aug 5, 2003 8:02 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)In reply to: Wasn't UCITA necessary for the GPL to be legal? by mmutz Parent article: UCITA goes down Let's play devil's advocate here: Isn't the GPL (and other FSS licenses) also a shrink-warp license. Quite simply: no. The difference is that you are NOT required to agree to the terms of the GPL to use software under the GPL. That is, it is perfectly allowed to download software under the GPL, refuse to agree to any of the terms in the GPL, and still install and use the software. If you refuse to agree to the GPL, then you are bound by the terms of normal copyrigth. This means that you could not redistribute or copy the software. Not because of anything in the GPL, but because normal standard copyrigth forbids these actions. The GPL itself makes all of this painfully clear if you only bother to read it.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||