[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Savannah vs. Open Software License

From: Samium Gromoff
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Savannah vs. Open Software License
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:43:10 +0300
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.3 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:33:39 +0100,
Anselm Lingnau wrote:
> Samium Gromoff wrote:
> > 3. while signing the contract with the consumer you have this
> >    or something semantically equivalent to this clause included
> >    in it:
> >
> > "You, as a user, agree to drop the right to redistribute
> >  the source code of the binary we sell you."
> >
> >  The trick is that the international contract law overrides the GPL.
> >
> > Like it?
> Doesn't work. The only way »you« are entitled to distribute stuff based on 
> somebody else's GPL code is by giving the recipient the full GPL rights, 
> including redistribution of the source code. Once you get up to cute little 
> contract law tricks to try and change that, you're not allowed to give the 
> recipient the software to begin with in the first place. It's not quite 
> *that* easy.

So i have a little update on the whoring technology, for as it turned out
i`ve misunderstood it a bit:

1. You create the patch with that funny contract applied
2. the custiomer downloads the clean kernel
3. the customer downloads your patch, and therefore accepts your funny contract
4. the customer creates the work by applying the patch

> Anselm
> -- 
> Anselm Lingnau ... Linup Front GmbH ... Linux-, Open-Source- & Netz-Schulungen
> Linup Front GmbH, Robert-Bosch-Strasse 7, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany       
> address@hidden, +49(0)6151-9068-852, Fax -854,

regards, Samium Gromoff

reply via email to

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