[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: