On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 05:36:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > I am not sure why some people think the latter is acceptable, since it > > is similar in spirit and effect to the MS EULA (which says that you > > can't do anything the copyright holder doesn't like). > > If so, then the GPL is, too--the copyright holder "doesn't like" you > distributing binaries without source. Stop making ludicrous comparisons. No, that's entirely different. The MS EULA allows them to crush anything that they don't like. The GPL does no such thing. > > Free software licenses give things to the licensee. Not the copyright > > holder. > > ... commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim, > against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work > infringes a patent. > > Please not "or any licensee". This clause is not giving the licensee > special treatment. Right, it's giving the copyright holder special treatment. That's my point. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature