| |||||||||||||
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resignsGNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resignsPosted Dec 27, 2012 11:22 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)In reply to: GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns by rsidd Parent article: GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns If I have a license to Work A, and use Work A to copy Work B, then (by default) I am not breaching the license of Work A, only of Work B. The clause appears on cursory examination to be an attempt to make the violation of Work B's license using Work A a violation of Work A's license. Thus yes, it is an additional restriction. ("For any purpose", remember.)
(Log in to post comments)
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 11:43 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
But this "clause" is not part of the License for "work A"! The License is a separate text file in the source directory. This "clause" is just a comment embedded directly in the source files. If you use the code to copy work B, you are not breaching the "license" of work A, only "breaching" (whatever that means) this "clause". A more logical view is that this is not a "clause" at all, just a clarification to the user about what is and is not allowed.
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns Posted Dec 27, 2012 12:02 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
One simple counter-example: down here in Brazil, the clause in Apple's OSX license "only run this in Apple hardware" is null and void (*). what you call the "clarification" is, effectively, here, one extra clause to the license.
(*) our Software Law grants us the right of modifying legally-acquired software in any way we need, if it is with the objective of making it run in our hardware and/or operating system, for our private use. (Law 9609/98, art. 6, IV)
|
|||||||||||||