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: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:42:45 -0400


"Hyman Rosen" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
amicus_curious wrote:
If Verizon was deficient and unable to properly convey the license, the GPL assigns it to the end user automatically anyway. The end user has a license regardless.

That is not true. How can the GPL assign anything to anyone who has not
received software under its auspices? Perhaps you are misreading GPLv2?

    <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html>
    However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
    this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
    parties remain in full compliance.

This refers to people who have received the program accompanied by the
license.

That is not what it says, silly. It says that parties who have received "copies" from you. It makes no distinction about whether or not the copy is given "properly", according to their definitions, at least. Indeed, the whole section has its purpose as ensuring that the downstream user has a valid license, i.e. "The act of running the Program is not restricted...".

That is not possible since the GPL gives anyone who possesses the binary a license to use it. Now we are first of all just talking about end
users. Don't confuse the issue with considerations for distributors.

Again, how can the GPL give anything to anyone? The GPL only applies when
a work is distributed under it. The GPL imposes requirements upon people
who make and distribute copies, and when conveyed to a recipient, gives
the recipient the ability to make certain demands from the distributor.
It does not apply out of thin air when it has not been used.

As a simple counterexample, someone may create a program and distribute
the same copy under two separate licenses, one GPL and one proprietary.
How can the holder of a bare binary know which license should apply?

He doesn't need to know at all. The license issue being discussed is for using the software and the GPL plainly conveys that right to everyone who has a copy.


reply via email to

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