|
From: | amicus_curious |
Subject: | Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy |
Date: | Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:26:57 -0500 |
"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message znu-CA4059.21152628012009@news.individual.net">news:znu-CA4059.21152628012009@news.individual.net...
The JMRI case seems to have framed this issue in an environment where the parties seem moved to fight it out to a conclusion. Although the software is not GPL, I think that it only differs in degree of demand on the licensee. It should go a long way in resolving the issues in the GPL.This argument would be persuasive if judges were the legal equivalent of strictly-validating XML parsers, required to reject entire documents if portions of them were invalid). But this is not, in fact, the case. While I don't consider this outcome particularly likely, there is absolutely no reason why a judge couldn't, in principle, find that GPL validly granted permission to redistribute, but that (say) the provision requiring code disclosure for derivative works was invalid.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |