| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The GPL's true strengthThe GPL's true strengthPosted Aug 19, 2004 2:49 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40)Parent article: IBM files another summary judgment motion
This should give the lie to all those who say the GPL is "anti-copyright". The goals of the FSF may be to revolutionise copyright as it applies to software, but the GPL *uses* copyright very effectively.
As the GPL license text says, you don't have to agree to it; but it is *only* by following the GPL, or some other license from the copyright holder, that you may copy, modify or redistribute. It is copyright law that gives the license its teeth.
Copyleft in action.
(Log in to post comments)
The GPL's true strength Posted Aug 19, 2004 9:21 UTC (Thu) by steven97 (guest, #2702) [Link] What fascinates me more is that they apparently are confident that theGPL will be upheld in a federal court. To me, that's even more exciting.
The GPL's true strength Posted Aug 20, 2004 0:20 UTC (Fri) by vdvo (guest, #24133) [Link] What fascinates me more is that they apparently are confident that the GPL will be upheld in a federal court.Actually, I don't think that this demonstrates IBM's confidence in the GPL, because if the GPL were ruled invalid, then SCO doesn't have "permission or a license to copy and distribute IBM's copyrighted works", either, because the GPL is their only license. (Note that I am not saying that IBM wants/expects the GPL to be invalidated or anything like that; I merely say that your conclusion appears unfounded.)
The GPL's true strength Posted Aug 23, 2004 6:32 UTC (Mon) by mbp (guest, #2737) [Link] It demonstrates IBM are confident in the "got them both ways" design of the GPL: either SCO accepted it, or they did not (and are violating IBM's copyright).
Some prominent SCO/Microsoft shills have argued that the GPL is invalid in the sense that it allows redistribution but the conditions cannot be enforced. No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but people do argue this.
Alternatively, SCO have argued that they "didn't know" they were agreeing to the GPL, but that they were allowed to redistribute IBM's work anyhow. Larry Rosen argues something like this when he says free software ought to have an explicit clickthrough assent. IANAL, but I think he's wrong.
|
|
||||||||||||