Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
> So now this is a RICO case?! Complex acts usually involve Enterprise
> corruption, which again has a different standard of proof. Unless you can
> prove bad acts by all in the chain, forget a civil action on this one...
I didn't say anything about enterprise corruption. are you
constitutionally unable to focus on single cases?
> So? This is civil stuff again: IT'S ALL LEGAL! It's just is it damaging?
> And the answer here is no, because the only way that this chain may be
> broken into illegal acts is to revoke someone's fair use right, which
> isn't an option.
Violations of civil law are *illegal*, even if not criminal.
"criminal" is a subset of "illegal".
> It is an example of requesting that the end-user legally obtain
> something that the upstream may not ethically provide.
It depends entirely on what the case is.
> Sort of like...say...realplayer.deb.
If the realplayer people objected to realplayer.deb, it might well be
illegal. But they don't object...
> It was probably the intent of the GPL implementors to prevent such a
> happening, but the language allows it, probably because they are
> already pushing the acceptable limitations of fair use.
Blah, blah, blah.
You really don't understand the case, especially given phrases like
"GPL implementors". What, precisely, is a GPL implementor?
Reply to: