gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: More FSF hypocrisy


From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:16:00 -0400


"Thufir Hawat" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:32:52 -0400, Rjack wrote:

Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:32 -0400, Rjack wrote:

IF A COPYRIGHT LICENSE EXISTS, ITS LANGUAGE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A
CONTRACT IN DETERMINING ITS COVENANTS FOR PURPOSES OF BREACH AND
THEN EXAMINED FOR LANGUAGE DETERMINING SCOPE FOR PURPOSES OF
INFRINGEMENT.

Assuming this is so, what's your point?
The point of an original newsgroup post seems to evolvs with the
number of posts to the thread. I think we were discussing legal
enforcement of the GPL.


If EULA are contracts, what makes the GPL different from other EULA, in
your view?


The GPL contains unenforceable terms.


When other EULA are ignored by the end users, the response is typically
copyright infringement, right?

I don't think that is the case very often, if ever. A license term may be that the user is not permitted to rent out usage of the product. A company that sells computer systems with unlicensed software may be sued and/or prosecuted, but the people who bought the computers are not. Where pressure can be applied, such as the Genuine Software Advantage effort by Microsoft, the end user is given a series of offers to come clean, but they often result in a gratis license, or so it has been reported.


reply via email to

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