Subject: Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:09:53 +0200


What about this situation :


     This software is licensed under the GPL.
     Click *HERE* to assent to the existence of Santa Claus
        and download the software.

Did I sign a contract ?

Anyone can distribute GPLed code, under any condition.
Corel made Linux available to people over 18 years old exclusively.

so what  ?

bernard


* Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>, le 29-04-06, a écrit:
> If I hear one more person say the GPL is a license not a contract I'm going
> to scream!
> 
>      This software is licensed under the GPL.
>      Click *HERE* to assent to the GPL and download the software.
> 
> Now the GPL is a contract.
> 
> Even as just a license the GPL can say "under this license, 'distribute'
> includes XYZ."
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Tilly [mailto:btilly@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 11:03 AM
> > To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> > Cc: fsb@crynwr.com
> > Subject: Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
> > 
> > On 4/27/06, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> > > > > How do you define "distributed"?
> > > >
> > > > I don't define it.
> > > >
> > > > I let lawyers do that.
> > >
> > > Better still, in some cases the license defines it. See sections 5 and
> > 14 of
> > > OSL 3.0 (www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0.htm).
> > 
> > That may confuse the issue more than it clarifies it.
> > 
> > Suppose that the GPL defined distribution in such a way that putting
> > the software on an employee's machine was distribution.  Suppose that
> > an employer puts software on an employee's machine but is not willing
> > to give that employee the source to take home.  It would appear that
> > the employer was violating the GPL.  However that is not so, the GPL
> > is a copyright license, not a contract.  Therefore as long as the
> > employer is not doing something that requires permission under
> > copyright law, the employer has no need to pay any attention to the
> > GPL.  The end result is that the GPL doesn't actually mean what it
> > appears to say.
> > 
> > I prefer the present situation where it is clear that you have to fall
> > back on the murky definitions in copyright law, rather than a
> > situation where it appears that you don't, but actually you do
> > anyways.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Ben

-- 
             Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
               Software patents threaten your company
    Soutenez la Majorité Économique - Support the Economic Majority
                  http://www.economic-majority.com/

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion