Re: scope of linux in the corporates...


Nils O. Selåsdal wrote:

The GPL was written with great help of lawyers.

Definitely.

You should be aware that the GPL has been tested in court during the
past few years. It seems still to be a populer belief it has not.

I am aware of two cases in Germany. I'm not aware of any other cases.

Can you help me reconcile? Eben Moglen says you do not need to accept
the GPL to "experimentally modify" works covered by the GPL. (Emphasis
added)

"The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire,
install, use, inspect, *or* even experimentally *modify* GPL'd
software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by
proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license,
including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before
you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those
activities are *rights*, which all users ought to have; we *don't* even
*want* to cover those activities by license."

But the GPL clearly says you must to modify the program. (Emphasis
added)

"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, *by*
*modifying* *or* distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), *you* *indicate* *your* *acceptance* of this License to do
so,
and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing *or*
*modifying*
the Program or works based on it."

Is Eben Moglen wrong? Is the GPL wrong? Or does one or the other mean
something else?

DS

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... I find it obvious that the GPL was meant to prevent such to be possible. ... authored the license, but the intent of the person who *chose* the ... talks about "legal permissions to copy, distribute and/or modify" ... the conclusion is quite possibly that, in legal terms, it isn't. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... because the Hardware *ISN'T* ... hardware that was designed for the end-user to modify. ... compliance with the GPL. ... For those who are not willing to abide by the spirit of the license, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: ada & gui
    ... > GPL -- so your code would have to be released as GPL. ... If you modify a GMGPL library and distribute the modified code, ... license under which to redistribute your modified library. ... jmatthews at wright dot edu ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: scope of linux in the corporates...
    ... permission from the GPL to "distribute" the work. ... The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to ... I am not sure why he thinks you can experimentally modify GPL'd ... effect to that acceptance since the GPL doesn't require you to do ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.apps)
  • [PATCH] change libata license from OSL+GPL to GPL
    ... - changes license of all code from OSL+GPL to plain ole GPL ... indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and ...
    (Linux-Kernel)