Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>]

In reference to:

> > > > > 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,

I wrote:

> > 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?

Seth David Schoen wrote:

> 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. :-)

You misunderstand what I meant.  Even if your `EULA for the
distribution' said corporations weren't allowed to download it,
nothing could prevent a company from obtaining the GPL components
of the distribution from a third party and then `pulling the sort of
nonsense they've been pulling'

(I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is
legal;  I don't know that it is.  If it's called a `license', it's
different that saying you can have this GPL code for $10000)

Peter