Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
[still limited to debian-legal]
Bruce Perens writes:
> What bothers me is that you have to click "yes" on that license to get access
> to my GPL software, even though my software isn't covered by the license.
> Now, if the agreement was for use of their FTP site, that would be OK.
> But it's a software license, and it is being used with my GPL work in a way
> that would confuse most people who download the program regarding whether or
> not that license applies to my program.
It makes good sense to say that this is confusing, and that it would be
appropriate for Corel to clarify it. But, unless you can demonstrate that
that EULA actually has the effect of restricting users' rights under the
GPL, I don't think there is any cause of action or reason for insisting.
After all, I could go to your web site right now, download one of your
free programs, and put up the source code on my own web site behind a page
** LICENSE AGREEMENT **
By downloading this software, you agree to the terms of this agreement.
Note that this software is licensed under the GNU General Public License
and/or other licenses which give you certain rights, including the right
to freely use, modify, and distribute the software.
You hereby certify that you have a large beard.
[Yes, I agree] [No, I disagree]
Any legal problem with that action?
If not, I'd suggest making stronger distinctions between "really annoying or
irritating", "confusing or ambiguous", and "GPL violation". The appropriate
means of handling these cases vary widely.
Seth David Schoen <firstname.lastname@example.org> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5