[linux-elitists] Bizarre press release of the day
Fri Nov 21 13:44:09 PST 2003
Quoting Adam Kessel (email@example.com):
> I understand that GPLv2 does not purport to be a contract, but (1) it
> may be a contract regardless of what it purports itself to be....
1. That is already implicit in my wording, I believe.
2. At the risk of driving my earlier point into the ground: Evaluating
its validity as a contract (which it is not intended to be) sheds no
light on its enforceability purely under copyright law.
I stress the latter point because a depressing stream of law-review
articles keep blowing it.
> I think the more serious concern was that the product would have been
> released and widely disseminated and the infringement might have come to
> light much later in the process, in which case there could be serious
This is, once again, exactly the same as what might have happened with a
differently-licensed (but non-BSD, non-public domain) library used in
its place. Thus my point.
> Of course I'm with you on all of this, but I do think in practice it may
> be easier for GPL code to slip in unnoticed or accidentally. As I'm
> sure you're aware, some developers don't quite appreciate the
> not-so-subtle distinctions between GPL, BSD, and public domain, and
> just assume "free is free."
Once again, my point concerned _software companies and their law firms_,
which are supposed to understand the concepts of third-party rights and
due diligence -- or are held accountable for them, in any event.
Cheers, * Contributing Editor, Linux Gazette *
Rick Moen -*- See the Linux Gazette in its new home: -*-
More information about the linux-elitists