| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The GPL's true strengthThe GPL's true strengthPosted Aug 20, 2004 0:20 UTC (Fri) by vdvo (guest, #24133)In reply to: The GPL's true strength by steven97 Parent article: IBM files another summary judgment motion 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.)
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|
||||||||||||