Re: Licensing requirements ???

[Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org>]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 03:17:19PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Hmm, there's one point here that others haven't mentioned yet.  The
> SLAs should not forbid the customers from making modifications to
> the GPLed software, because that would contradict section 6 ("You
> may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise
> of the rights granted herein.").  However, the GPL does allow
> this:
> 
> "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
> you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
> 
> You can presumably put whatever conditions you like on that warranty
> protection, and on whatever service you offer with it.
> 
> I'm not sure how this interacts with any contracts surrounding the
> hardware.  Would it be okay if you say "you can modify the software
> as much as you like, but you're not allowed to run modified software
> on this device"?  I could discuss that for weeks :-)

I'd say "This SLA only applies to the software provided by us.  If you
modify any of the supplied software in any way, or add extra software to the
system(s) covered by this warranty, this SLA is null and void and there are
no warranties about whether or not we'll fix it".

That doesn't say "you can't screw with it", just "screw with it and we won't
dig your arse out of the sand".  It also doesn't say "you can't get a copy
of this and whack it on another machine" - except for any parts that aren't
freely licenced, of course.

It's not really any different to "warranty void if removed".

Hmm, that could be the way to GPL the whole thing, removing any possible
doubt about whether you need paid licences for anything - charge people for
the SLA, service, support, upgrades, and whatever, but don't lock them into
the software.

Ghods, I'm a genius.  <grin>

- Matt