Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> 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 sorry for the misunderstanding; that's absolutely correct. I was
thinking that you were talking about a different issue.
> (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)
Obviously _some_ EULAs on top of compilations containing GPLed software are
legal. Presumably not all of them are.
--
Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.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
Reply to: