Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> Seth David Schoen wrote:
> > Henning Makholm writes:
> > > Caspian <email@example.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> > > > completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> > > > prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> > > > they've been pulling,
> > >
> > > Note that you won't be able to include any GPLed software in your
> > > distribution if you want to make restrictions about how and when
> > > other people or corporations are allowed to redistribute it.
> > Where does the GPL say that? I can give you several examples of distributors
> > who have made this their regular practice.
> If you don't own the code that is GPLed, you can't relicense it
> under a different license. How could you then use `a license
> that prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort
> of nonsense they've been pulling' if the GPL allows it?
Depends on how that's accomplished. If it's a license for the entire
distribution as a whole, it should be possible. That's what I was
assuming: a EULA for the distribution.
If it's a matter of relicensing GPLed code to forbid the use of EULAs,
at all, then no, it's presumably not allowed. :-)
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