Defender of the GPL

TalkBack 30 of 136:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

You're still making zero sense

The GPL requires that modifications and aggregations which use
GPL'd code to be released under the GPL. However, some third
party who has no right to your code and adds it to a GPL'd
program doesn't make that code GPL'd. He had no right to the
code in the first place, only the copyright owner can license their
code. If you are the copyright owner and choose to use GPL'd
code, well, you knew the what license the code was under up
front.

Next, using the GPL to license your code doesn't take away your
ability to sue for copyright infringement. The GPL relies on the
fact that you can sue for copyright infringement to enforce it.
The only type of lawsuit the GPL attempts to restrict (and this is
only in the new GPL 3 draft) is a patent lawsuit. And it doesn't
even stop you, it just says that if you sue the user of a piece of
GPL'd software for patent infringement you lose the right to use
that GPL'd software. No where does the GPL state you can't sue
for copyright infringement. No where does the GPL state you
can't sue for patent infringement. And if you'd like to continue
with that argument, please respond with the actual quote from
the GPL that makes you think you can't.

Finally, what in the world does "honor" or "respect" have to do
with a license? Are you trying to say they need to be
compatible? Well, that's blatently wrong right there, a license
doesn't need to be compatible with another license. If two
pieces of code are licensed under incompatible licenses they
simply can't be combined. This is true of the GPL version 2 and
the Apache License version 2. This is true of the original BSD
license and the GPL. It's even true of the GPL version 2 and the
Affero GPL. And, obviously, if you don't want to release your
code under the GPL, don't use GPL'd code. If you aren't talking
about compatibility then you're going to actually need to explain
what you are talking about. And, finally, there is no such thing
as an "illegal" agreement per se. A license can be unenforceable
for any number of reasons. A license can attempt to require you
to perform an illegal act (though, obviously that license would
be unenforceable), but committing the illegal act is illegal, not
the license.

Please go and learn at least some rudimentary facts about
copyrights and licensing and try reading the GPL before you
come back with more innane comments.

Posted by: rhavyn   Posted on: 01/20/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• CDW Services Overview: Unified Communications CDW Businesses that utilize unified communications solutions empower employees ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now