Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

[kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)]

In article <5qdof6$iav$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes:
>So, although you can't legally restrict someone from distributing a modified
>version of a GPLed program, you can still take any other action against them
>that you can get away with if they do distribute it? Can you write a
>maintenance contract that automatically terminates (without refund of any
>money) if they redistribute it, or can you only choose to not renew the
>contract in the future?

The only way question at the edge, like that one, can be answered, is
by actually litigating it in court.  However, from a practical
perspective, what most matters is what the copyright holder feels
is appropriate, since if they feel it appropriate, they won't sue.

Since the cases we are talking about of asking people not to redistribute
are based on the desire to prevent buggy code from getting out there,
it is consistent with the best interests of the FSF and thus they
would not sue.

If this were done in some other context (i.e., where the issue was
not to delay distibution until a release was ready but to use this
sort of external arrangement to prevent redistribution at all), I 
wouldn't want to try to predict which way it would go; it would
strongly depend on what the "other action" would be.  I doubt that
merely refusing to renew a maintenance contract would be sufficient
since that's something you do not need a reason to do.