Re: GPL and "free" software

[owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Lynn Winebarger)]

In article <m2ogkae2db.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
David Kastrup  <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt) writes:
>
>> AFAICT it is perfectly legal for B to to tell C this until after C
>> has bought it; after all, that is what Linux vendors do with
>> shrinkwrapped distrutions.

   Actually, the whole premise that a software license needs to be on
the outside is sort of bogus, and it doesn't really apply to the GPL
anyway.  Why?  Because, unlike most attempts to inflict a license on a
consumer, the GPL is not a license on a copy of the software, it's a
license on the copyrights themselves.  That is, you don't have to agree
to a contract on a copy of GPL'ed software, so it's really kind of
irrelevant as to whether you're given notice of the GPL or not (as far
as accepting a contract goes).
   Of course, I think that when you purchase a box with a copy of
software inside, you've purchased the copy, not a license, anyway.  It's
not because of the (fallacious) argument that you haven't read the terms
or had an opportunity to negotiate, it's because allowing companies to
sell "licenses" instead of actual products on the open market (as
opposed to an actual privately made contract) amounts to letting
companies get rights against the world, which is clearly the sole domain
of the federal government.  That's all in my non-lawyer opinion, of
course.  

>
>It would probably more complicated if the user acquired a 50-computer
>license for a large price over the 1-computer version, when the offer
>is not accompanied by appropriately more value, such as proportional
>support or media.
>
>In that case we are slowly getting into areas where, well, at least
>you would not buy a second time at that outlet.  Perhaps some sort of
>a court case could be made out of it, but I am not quite sure what.
>
   I was thinking the only real case where something like this would
happen would be where, say, a company makes modifications to GPL'ed
software that are hardware specific to the setup they're selling, then
don't pass along the source to the customers.  I think you'd get an
especially interesting case here, if the customer demanded the source.
One, I think distributing modified versions of GPL'ed software does
signal acceptance, and I think a judge would see it that way too.  The
only reason (that I can think of) that the seller might not have to
release the source code is if it is contractually bound to not do so
(maybe), and even then I tend to think that the sellers would be ordered
to pay damages to the customer for the costs of having to back out of
an installation (obviously, once an institution has widely deployed the
software/hardware combination, a mere refund of the purchase price could
be much less than the cost of switching).  
   
   Of course, what will be interesting is if/when a case actually
occurs.

Lynn