[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:11:01 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Fortunately, the GPL does not bind any third parties.
Thank God you finally admit this. Thank you. You just shot the ass out from under the theory of "downstream" licensing.

Licensing isn't binding on anyone. People who receive copies of GPLed sources and wish to convey further copies or derived works may do so under terms of the GPL. The copyright holders grant this license to all such people. If they do not wish to accept the terms of the GPL for this, then they are limited by whatever permissions pure copyright law grants.

Anyone who does more either implicitly accepts the GPL, or implicitly violates copyright law.

Anyone who explicitly or implicitly accepts the voidable terms contained in the GPL is a fool since illegal terms are unenforceable.

The terms of the GPL are both legal and enforceable.
Yep... and pigs fly in the land of GNU too.

Anyone who conveys copies of covered works without complying with
the license is in violation of copyright and can be liable both civilly and criminally.
Anyone who conveys copies of covered works is not bound by
the GPL's voidable terms and has a perfect defense of estoppel.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]