From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/04/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 471425644 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7fudch$hsv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3723c38b@eeyore.callnetuk.com> <7g2gqk$ffk$1@52-a-usw.rb1.blv.nwnexus.net> <925171876snz@vision25.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: sunu789.rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de 925211935 8958 134.147.176.143 (27 Apr 1999 11:18:55 GMT) Organization: Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum, Germany Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Apr 1999 11:18:55 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-04-27T11:18:55+00:00 List-Id: philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt) writes: > In article <7g2gqk$ffk$1@52-a-usw.rb1.blv.nwnexus.net> > tzs@halcyon.com "Tim Smith" writes: > > In article , wrote: > > >Well B has done nothing wrong in selling C the software. Neither party can > > >really sue B because B hasn't broken the licence (unless they refuse to > > >give C the source code upon request). > > > > B broke the license by not telling C that the software was GPL'ed. > > 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. Of course, traditional shrink-wrapped licenses have to include a phrase where you may return the unused software if you do not agree with the license. This is not the case with GPLed software, as GPLed software grants you only additional freedoms over the case where you would buy software without an explicit license. That the recipient of the software may at his choice further distribute the software for an arbitrary price to whoever he wants is not in itself to be suing for fraud. 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. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany