Yes it's the case

Posted Dec 12, 2008 1:40 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313)
In reply to: Yes it's the case by gmaxwell
Parent article: Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations

there are limits to what is considered reasonable for such licenses, and I don't believe that your example would be considered valid.

Yes it's the case

Posted Dec 12, 2008 6:55 UTC (Fri) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] (4 responses)

If the license is not valid, what license would you have to distribute the code?

Sometimes court can declare PART of the license "null and void"

Posted Dec 12, 2008 17:04 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (3 responses)

For example if your license demands that you'll chop your hand before you'll start using the program court will usually say it's "unreasonable demand" and THIS PART of the license will be declared null and void (but the license as whole will still be valid). But in reality this rarely happen: usually some part of the license can be voided only when license contains requirements which are specifically forbidden by some law.

in which case you still don't have a license

Posted Dec 14, 2008 1:04 UTC (Sun) by pjm (guest, #2080) [Link] (2 responses)

Even if the GPL said you can only distribute this software if you do something illegal, you still wouldn't be able to distribute the software:

If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. (§7, GPLv2)

in which case you still don't have a license

Posted Dec 16, 2008 6:54 UTC (Tue) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (1 responses)

Is that legal advice? You are a lawyer?

rhetorical questions

Posted Jan 9, 2009 0:50 UTC (Fri) by pjm (guest, #2080) [Link]

Sorry I forgot to add "IANAL" until after I'd already posted that comment (LWN doesn't have a comment edit facility).

I'm not sure what k8to means by the question "is that legal advice", but I believe the answer is fairly obvious for most meanings even without the IANAL disclaimer. I think points can be made more clearly without rhetorical questions such as the above; it actually comes across a bit sarcastic, which is not conducive to helpful discussion.