Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue

["Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>]

> >...We're discussing Kasakov's proposal that the legal system
> >should make no warranty licenses, e.g. GPL, void,
>
> GPL will not be void, because GPLed products are not sold.

This under your proposed system, right? Because under the current system
selling is not required for a license to hold.

> Precisely I meant that IF you sell a software product, then either 1)
> you have to give something in return [in addition to the "right to
> use"], or 2) the product automatically falls under some sort of
> "default" license which grants rights to use, copy, modify, reverse
> engineer it to everybody.
>
> N.B. A software house is free to choose (2) and protect the product
> using activation keys etc. But then, anybody would have right to crack
> that protection.

Again, just to make sure, you're describing your proposed system, right?

Then it's strictly academic. It might not be a bad system, but it has no
chance of becoming real. It's too much against free market and copyright.
Which, like or not, are here to stay for a long time.

However, even in the current system, it is not clear that some licenses are
not void, or enforceable. For example, GPL has not been in court yet, and
some people including legal minds have doubts it will have any force there.