GPL Wins In French Court Case 266
viralMeme writes "An appeals court in Paris has upheld the ruling from a lower court, which found that the French firm Edu4 had violated the GNU General Public License (GPL). The plaintiff was the French Organisation Association francaise pour la Formation Professionnelle des Adultes (AFPA), an umbrella organization for adult education." The basic charge was the removal of copyrights and such from VNC source code, and not distributing it.
French, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:French, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Very funny... NOT.
Just remember that the recent HADOPI 'three strikes and you are out' law can -and will- be challenged in front of the French Constitutional Court, which will probably strike it down as un-constitutional and contrary to human rights.
Which is a big relief, at least for me (being French and all that).
Re:French, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
I would very much not count on this. The rewritten law is designed to route around the Conseil Constitutionnel's earlier objections.
Now the convictions will have to be signed off by a judge using the ordonnance pénale procedure, which is, if I got it correctly, the procedure used to deliver, for instance, driving-related fines. The gist of it: a cop has no right to sentence you to anything, only a judge can, but it's assumed that if a cop directly witnessed you speeding then you're as good as guilty and a simplified, faster procedure is thus used; that's the ordonnance pénale. You can challenge the ruling, in which case it goes to a regular court.
So is this procedure appropriate to the case of copyright infringement? Hell no. To start with infringement can be witnessed as coming from a given IP address, not an identified person, making those cases immensely less clear cut than common driving-related offenses. But does that make it unconstitutional? Nope, I don't think. My bet is that the law will likely stand as such.
The law tries to brain-damagedly route around the lack of direct IP to person mapping by making the owner of the Internet account legally responsible for everything that happens on it. I'm not sure of the constitutionality of that, but I'm afraid it may stand too, ill-thought patch job that it is. Meaning the death of open access points.
So I wouldn't be optimistic.
All this because the French president's trophy wife is a singer. The mind boggles.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they fix the discriminatory bits (not applying to ministers, the music industry and so on)?
Re: (Score:2)
- Free speech
- Right to assemble
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I just tried that, and it came out as "THAATH THAAYAAAH!" so maybe the tongue idea was a bit off.
Re: (Score:2)
To have the internet connection disconnected, they'd need to point at the CEO, stick their tongue out, and shout "FILE SHARER!" three times.
Betelgeuse! Betelgeuse! Betelgeuse!
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The law says that you get one strike for each accusation, not conviction.
Considering there were at least two other instances where they were told they were infringing (once when they were notified, the second was the original court case) then they're ready to be disconnected.
Not much in the article either. (Score:5, Funny)
So they teach about porn?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What the hell? Crazy French! (Score:2)
Hang on just a second. Does the AFPA (the plaintiffs) own the copyright on the GPLd source? They do not. Then what standing do they have to sue anyone over it, or receive payment? This is GPL related, but the relief went to a 3rd party!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding of the GPL is that if they made a patch, changed some code, or added some new code, they would own the copyright to those changes only, the rest is owned by the original creator(s) of that code. The GPL is not a copyright assignment, but a distribution license. This is why some of organizations require copyright assignment to them from community contributors, so that they can sell versions of the software under a different license without having to track down the contributors and make licen
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the hell? Crazy French! (Score:5, Informative)
Read the article. The AFPA requested the source code of the modifications the company (Edu4) did to VNC but the company refused to provide it and so they were sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any sane legal system should let ANYBODY sue over ANY illegal thing. Unfortunately, it is not like this in France.
IANAL but I believe in France the only thing you need to be allowed to sue is to have something to gain. Here AFAP have access to the source code to gain, therefore is allowed to sue.
Re:What the hell? Crazy French! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Any sane legal system should let ANYBODY sue over ANY illegal thing"
Say what?
First let's put this in context: people sue over civil matters - not criminal ones. Indeed the case in question - a GPL violation - is a civil matter. So what you're saying is "if I do something that makes me liable to Bob, Jim should be able to sue me".
What if Bob and I are perfectly happy to resolve the matter out of court? Why, then, would it be any of Jim's business? The civil courts are there as one means of conflict resolution - and most reasonable people consider them a last resort. If you're not part of the dispute, you don't get to decide what method should be used to resolve it.
Again, if we were talking about a criminal offense, that's completely different. It would be considered the business of everyone in the society - which is why neitehr Bob nor Jim sue in that case, but rather the state brings charges (potentially even if Bob would rather they didn't).
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that law should be respected. full stop. My interest as a citizen of a country is that laws are respected. It is the only point in having a state.
I believe US laws allow a lawyer to sue in the name of someone that may not agree with the lawsuit. I think it is linked with class actions but I am not sure of it.
There are case where you can not sue due to the costs of the lawsuit or due to pressure applied on you. It is classical in employer/employee relation. It is classical in France in the employme
Re: (Score:2)
All of them when Carol has guaranteed Alice the right to have access to her work covered under the copyright in question. Carol has standing as the original copyright holder and can sue for any number of reasons. Alice can only sue to obtain access to the copyrighted works (the sourcecode) because the GPL explicitly states that Bob has to give them to her if he distributes the binaries. In most cases the relief will be access to the code, legal fees, and possibly some punitive damage amount to remind Bob to
Re:What the hell? Crazy French! (Score:4, Informative)
They didn't sue over the copyright. They sued over license violations that impacted them. The operative words are "that impacted them"; that gives them legal standing.
The license gets its force from the copyright, but that changes nothing. The plaintif had a right which the defendant violated, regardless of the fact that the right in question was granted by a document whose authority came from somebody else's rights.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
AFPA is a customer of Edu4. They buy an software system from them, for a given purpose. When they receive the product, they see that part of the software is not owned by Edu4 and that Edu4 has no right to redistribute this software as they don't comply to GPL and they don't have alternate license to redistribute it. AFPA sue Edu4 for selling them something they have no right to redistribute.
Imagine you go to a shop and buy a MS Office License. You go home and it appears this is an illegal copy. Don't you ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the hell? Crazy French! (Score:5, Informative)
It's an idiosyncracy of French law. The plaintiff here was a customer who did, yes, successfully sue for the source code. It probably couldn't happen in the US or UK.
FSF France's take on this finds this noteworthy: [fsffrance.org]
Just when you thought the German courts were GPL-friendly, this shows up. Vive la France!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, we are returning "Freedom Fries" back to their original name "French Fries". Happy now?
We still apologize for French's Mustard, which is not french and can barely be called mustard.
Re: (Score:2)
> We still apologize for French's Mustard, which is not french and can barely be called mustard
How about English Muffins? I'd never seen one before I went to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
English muffins are readily available in the UK and other Western countries.
In the same theme, "Danish pastries" (Wienerbrød) and "Brazil nuts". (castanhas-do-Pará) And to extend it
further, the shower water heating unit in my UK bathroom had a model name of "California", even though
I've never seen such a thing in the US.
Never mind "Double-dutch", or indeed "French", when talking about swearing.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you english?
Because we just call them muffins over here. Very tasty, not too popular these days though. We also call the US style muffins (cakey things) muffins, just so we can keep things clear.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like somebody else getting in an accident on the highway due to a manufacturing error, and you get to sue the manufacturer for negligence.
It might not be a great analogy, but at least it involves cars.
Re:What the hell? Crazy French! (Score:5, Informative)
Well, first of all, this was French law, not US or English, so their idea of standing might be different.
Second, the AFPA were third party beneficiaries of the GPL -- as receivers of the binary, they were entitled (by the GPL) to receive the source. This might have granted them standing even in the US.
From
http://ejustice.org/federal_practice_manual_2006/chapter_5/chap5sec3.html [ejustice.org]
The GPL (IMO, IANAL) makes it crystal clear that the person receiving the binary is an intended beneficiary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I understand the sets of circumstances here, the Edu4 stripped the GPL and copyright notices from the product and pretended it was their own. They even pretended that they didn't distribute the product even though they left it on the computers they installed.
If these claims are true, it would be near impossible for an end user in the US to claim to be the intended beneficiary. This would be because they had no idea of the specific contract obligations until after the fact which would push them more to th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing in the information I posted or linked to says anything about concealing the terms of a contract from an intended beneficiary makes the intended beneficiary incidental. If you have other information please post
Re: (Score:2)
But AFPA does not own any copyrights in the original VNC source, and in any sane jurisdiction wouldn't be able to receive relief over those rights. I can't figure out if this case is over contract law (therefore not a GPL issue), over AFPA's rights to any modified source that was created for them as a work-for-hire (therefore not a GPL issue) or is genuinely them asserting rights that they don't own (insane in the membrane).
Backdoor (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering that Edu4 [...]
- modified VNC protection mechanism by introducing a non-modifiable password known only from Edu4, thus allowing Edu4 to take control of any workstation, bypassing the protection mechanism Edu4 delivered;
- did not mention any of this to AFPA;
- [...]
2 words and a question (Score:2)
Ah (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Read the article: AFPA - the education agency - sued edu4 - a company working for this agency - because edu4 did not release the source code to its modified VNC software.
The court essentially said that AFPA was correct, that the GPL should have been upheld by edu4, and that the source code should be released by edu4 to its client, the AFPA.
Essentially, this is good news: as far as France is concerned, the GPL has been challenged, and upheld in court. Modifications done by a private company to a GPL software should therefore be available for all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"should therefore be available for all"
No, not to all, only to their clients. What their clients do with it in turn is up to them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, not to all, only to their clients.
Not according to the GPL. If you distribute GPL software to anyone, then you must extend the offer of source code to all third parties.
Wrong. Look people it's fucking simple, if you distribute GPL, you bring along the source. You have no obligation to distribute it to anybody else than those you distributed the software to. Meaning if A buys software from B, B must give source to A, C has no way of demanding the source from either. How is this difficult?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
You're both almost right.
Empahsis mine.
Basically, edu4 could have either distribute the source with the binaries or accompany the binaries with a written offer to distribute the source to any third parties. (I suppose they technically could have done both and still be in compliance, but that seems rather redundant)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
mod parent up. The original post on this thread was just plain FUD.
You must:
1) give the modified GPL source code as well as the binaries to the person who is your client.
You have the option to
2) give the modified GPL source code to your client, and everybody else if you choose to.
The second option is not mandatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that most people don't distribute source code along with the binary distribution. It's not "give the modified source code as well as the binaries", it's "give the modified sourcecode along with the binaries".
Now it's arguable that "A URL to a page with a tar.bz2" is a medium customary to software interchange, but it is also arguable that a URL is simply "a written offer to provide" sourcecode (which fits b, not a).
There is no option to provide a written offer which is valid only to those who have rec
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, thanks, I forgot about the "one of" clause.
I really don't see how that makes my post 'FUD' as all these others are claiming, especially since a link to a website containing the source -- even if it isn't your website, it just contains your modifications -- is sufficient.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's difficult because it depends how you "give source".
If you go for the written offer to provide source rather than just providing the source upfront then you do in fact have an obligation to provide the source to all third parties.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
quit spreading FUD - try reading the GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Your statement is (sadly) one of the many common FUD scarecrows foes of open source use to try to prevent companies from using GPL software.
The GPL very specifically only requires you to offer to "convey" the "Corresponding Source" to the parties to whom you have conveyed object or binaries containing your modifications AND that you convey to those same parties your distribution rights so that they may convey your object/binaries and corresponding source to anyone they choose to (as long as they do so under
Re:quit spreading FUD - try reading the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL intentionally does not impose the burden for modifiers to positively disseminate their "Corresponding Source" to anyone other than those to whom they have already incurred the burden of distributing the binaries.
GPLv2 section 3b. If you don't convey the source directly with the object code, you must convey a written offer valid for any third party to send them the source code upon request.
I had forgotten that this was an "or" clause, but it is in the GPL, so maybe you should read it too?
And this isn't FUD for anyone who wasn't already terrified of the GPL. Why is conveying a link to a website with the source such an onerous burden? Especially when that link can simply be to whatever CVS repository the open source project normally works from, assuming you committed your changes to it? Seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it CAN be a heavy burden. For a company that is starting to use GPL code, and DOES wish to comply with the GPL, but has not historically distributed source, to their clients, much less, anyone who asks, this can be a significant burden because it lacks the distribution channels to do this professionally.
I ran into this hurdle with a former employer. The problem was that to distribute source effectively would require distributing much of our build mechanism as well because of the dependency hell th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Propagation of this misinformation, specifically, is the reason the GPL is so misunderstood: too many people out there that think GPL is the same thing as public domain and derive a sense of entitlement from it.
General Public License != Public Domain
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing I said would apply to software in the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! We only equate GPL with public domain when we grab someone else's public domain code and slap the GPL on it! This isn't at all like that!
We? Who's we?
Did you steal someone's source and slapped the GPL on it? I know I didn't!
(yes, yes, I know IHBT,IHL,HAND)
Re: (Score:2)
...and those who can't be bothered to RTFA, while rushing madly to post first, are doomed to look like morons (or trolls, at best).
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
It sucks to see the GPL being used to shut down an organization that dedicates itself to something noble like adult education. Then again, what did they have to gain by NOT publishing their changes and removing the copyright info?
You're the kind of guy who sees a good and innocent side of genocide, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure I understand you. The Adult Education organisation was the plaintiff, the winner, in this case, complaining that the IT company they hired to set something up for them, used and modified GPL code (VNC) but did not, as required by the GPL, give them the modified sources. Presumably, the IT company was wanting to keep the AE organisation beholden to them for maintenance rather than, as the GPL hopes, being able to do it themselves or find someone else to do it if the wanted to. I.e. the GPL wanted to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't be bothered to RTFA, do they get to keep the hardware too?
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, most of the rest of us would have elected to start with lawyers, politicians, and telephone sanitisers before depopulating along ethnic lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Were you just as eager when M$ sued russian schools about their pirated Windows versions?
In THAT case, the one sued was a real education institution.
In THIS case, the one sued is a for profit company.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are all for profit institutions. The only difference is in who makes the profit- investors verses employees. Just because the state funds one of them shouldn't change the reality of what is happening. I know of teachers making over 100k a year teaching grade school and only working 9 months of the year. They will get another 7% increase within the next year because of a contract they negotiated while on strike.
Re: (Score:2)
how exactly are they shutting the organizaton down? The GPL was violated, and the AFPA refused reconciliation. BTW, even Microsoft didn't let its GPL violation go to court, it instead released the violating code after some negotiation.
Re: (Score:2)
note: some of my assertions are incorrect, based on the summary and posted before I read the article. oops.
Re:Use public domain! (Score:5, Insightful)
People should be able to release code they wrote with whatever conditions they like. And hey, it's the case (for once something positive).
There is a reason why GPL is so successful and there is so little Public Domain code. The GPL isn't terribly difficult to understand, as it simply says: sure, take this code for free, improve it, but the price is that you redistribute your changes with the same conditions.
If you don't like this kind of license, then simply don't use GPL'd code. Use something like BSD licensed code, like Apple did with OS X.
This is not rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your sentiment in every way, but not your example... Had BSD been GPL'd apple would have been able to release the exact same amount of source code (the whole of darwin), and still be compliant. Apple didn't chose that code because it was BSD'd, they chose it because it was a good base for their OS.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
BSD is how a license should be. I'm not talking about granted rights but how it's written. The BSD is short, concise and everybody can understand it. The GPL is the sort of bloated legalese mumbojumbo that makes you think "Oh, screw this!".
The GPL is difficult to understand, which is documented by the massive amount of posts, threads and questions on what is and what is not allowed. All these posts always end with "I'm just guessing, get a lawyer". It's definitely not easy to understand if you need a lawyer
Re: (Score:2)
"There is a reason why GPL is so successful and there is so little Public Domain code."
Actually, it's because international copyright laws have effectively eliminated the Public Domain option by creating automatic copyright.
Nevertheless, there's a ton of code out there that was intended to be in the public domain - no doubt RMS used some as a guide when he was learning how to program.
Re:Use public domain! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure THAT's a great idea. Convince me, please. Are you sure that public domain has any force or power to ensure that it is NOT abused? GPL at least has teeth to bite it's abusers.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give an example of an abuser that gets bitten by the GPL?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. RTFA. Or, are you cross posting from another dimension? Company A distributed binaries to Company B. Company B requested the source, which Company A denied. Company B sued, and was awarded the source, along with all their court costs and other expenses. Company A has been bitten, right in the pocket book.
IMHO, there should have been a punitive award of some sort, but I'm no lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
damn copy paste error! In the mean time, got a response to the actual point being made?
Re: (Score:2)
The inherent abuse is in that you wouldn't be allowed to have the VLC source if you didn't agree to the rules.
It's not as simple as "code you yourself wrote", because it's code you yourself wrote as a derivative of something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Your first paragraph is just circular reasoning "it's inherently an abuse because the GPL forbids it in its rules" and "the GPL forbids it in its rules because it's inherently an abuse". I agree that *if* you happen to grab GPL'd source, you should abide by the rules, but again, I'm trying to point out that what the GPL bans is *not* inherently an abuse.
Your second paragraph makes slightly more sense, but I don't think you're right at all. The original from which you derived is still available, and still
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know they were distributing an unmodified version of VNC?
Oh, because you read the source.
Good thing you had it available.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of posting what two other people already said, why don't you read my response to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that supporters of the Free Software philosophy believe that refusing to give source to people who receive your binaries IS an abuse of power.
But nobody really cares about that. We all know that you're just redefining the word 'abuse' retroactively to cover up the fact that you didn't even read the fucking article summary and got laughably owned by everyone who cared to hit the reply button.
Since you've STILL apparently not even read the article summary, allow me to point out that it's VNC (as in the
Re: (Score:2)
Except that supporters of the Free Software philosophy believe that refusing to give source to people who receive your binaries IS an abuse of power.
Not at all, I'm a supporter of free software, and because of that I've written a good amount of BSD licensed code. The FSF do like to corrupt the idea of freedom rather though. (note, distinguishing between free software, and the FSF)
But nobody really cares about that. We all know that you're just redefining the word 'abuse' retroactively to cover up the fact
Re: (Score:2)
Bad analogies don't make any sort of an argument. I said nothing about rape, or corpses, and I don't see how even the worst analogy applies here.
I asked, quite simply, if public domain is actively defended? Can something be removed from public domain? Whether it can or not, if a corporation USES something that is public domain, do they have any obligations regarding that use?
With GPL, there are obligations, and there are people actively defending it. I asked to be convinced, not mocked, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
In many cases its actually impossible to release something to public domain. Many nations have "natural rights" laws that prevent an author from releasing all rights to something.
Public domain also does not ensure that derivative works based on your work remain open and free.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(self-reply). I'm no Pamela Jones, but here's a quick summary:
After seeing the 21SEP04 emergency judgement at Bobigny high claims court
After seing the 21SEP04 appeal by the defendant
After seing the 22DEC06 decision whee the court agreed (in essence) for hearing expert opinion ..
After seeing the expert's memo from 25APR08
After seeing the last demands from the defendant
After seeing the last demands from the plaintiff
THE COURT,
considering that all the due process (from 2000 onwards) has been followed
consideri
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah; you're not flamebait. You just want a license to do more with the code than he GPL grants. You should ask the copyright owners for such a license; they might be willing to give it to you. They might also ask a price for such a license. But note that you don't need a license to merely use GPL'd code. Unless you change the code, just running it on your comput
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm new to GPL; Do I misunderstand? You aren't required to release everything that links to GPL libraries, right? Just any changes you make to the libraries themselves? Couldn't you continue to keep your shareware source closed, even if you use a GPL library?
I am not a lawyer, but I can tell you that if you want to use someone else's code, no matter what the license, in your own product, then you better read the license very carefully and don't rely on posts on Slashdot. Asking a lawyer might be a good idea
That said, if you use a library that is licensed under GPL and not dual licensed, then you cannot publish your code except under the GPL license. That's it. There are libraries published under the LGPL, which has different rules.
Re: (Score:2)
The criterion is that if your work is a derivative work of the GPL'd code, then your work must also be released under the GPL.
In many jurisdictions an app that links to GPL libraries would be at serious risk of infringing. There might possibly be a situation where it would not be at risk...if the app was written first and the GPL library modified later to conform to the linkage expected by the app, then likely the app would not be considered a derivative work.
For specifics, please contact a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
GPL or LGPL (Score:2)
No. If you link to a GPL licensed library, the executable is a derivative work of that code and hence you must release all of the source code for the executable. Fortunately, many "Free Software" libraries are licensed under the LGPL license, in which
Re: (Score:2)
If you use any GPL software as part of your software, you have to GPL it, too
It's slightly more subtle than that. Product A is GPL'd. Product B uses A. Product B does not have to be GPL'd, but:
If B is not a derived work of A then you can distribute B under whatever license you like, but you can not distribute A at all unless B is under a GPL-compatible license (and that applies to all downstream distributors: no one is allowed to distribute B and A tog
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, sorry, I think it's you that misunderstands.
BSD licensed products cannot use GPL components as they are not under the GPL. BSD code can be brought into a GPL project, but GPL code and GPL libraries cannot be used by BSD.
"If B is not a derived work of A then you can distribute B under whatever license you like, but you can not distribute A at all unless B is under a GPL-compatible license (and that applies to all downstream distributors: no one is allowed to distribute B and A together)."
What is a deri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're getting into a VERY grey area there. GPL v2 clause 3 (just after subsection c) -
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."
Now, if your code is dynamically linked at build time and won't even start without the GPL library, I woul
Re: (Score:2)
"Let's face it: If the source code of a shareware app is released, it'll be cloned and ripped off within days."
Right, and what you're wanting to do by using GPL code without adhering to the rules is different from "ripping off" how?
It was released so it can be used by others who are playing the same game, openness.
You want people to pay for your closed source app, not to give your source back to the community, this is a totally different arena and not what the GPL'ers were aiming at. Sorry, open the source
Re:Sacre bleu! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ze GPL needs testing so badly. Zus far it has only been tested in ze legal depart'ments of business, and not in ze legal courts.
That first sentence is not really true, and not only because the second sentence is also untrue. The GPL may not have been tested extensively, but it has been tried in courts around the globe. But since there really isn't any reason no think that it would be ruled invalid, that testing isn't necessary. There's a reason it's been tested so few times -- all those legal departments, all those lawyers of various degrees of sleaziness, can find no basis on which to challenge it which they think would pass the judicial smell test. Even though they and their clients would have every reason to trump something up. The few that have tried to challenge the validity of the license have failed spectacularly.
That is, as the French say, "Le hint".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stallman wants everyone to refer to USA as GNU/USA?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you actually READ the EULA for Microsoft products? Protected? From what?
Or, pick another EULA for a closed source product. Let use Adobe, shall we?
"Stock Files may not be used in the production of libelous, defamatory, fraudulent, lewd, obscene or pornographic material..."
WTF does the actually mean? Isn't it completely dependent on the actual jurisdiction?
The GPL is simple. You DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE TO IT. You may use the software anyway. The ONLY time it comes into play is if you decide to distribute t
Re:Mixed Feelings. (Score:5, Insightful)
However it will also make people feel worried about using GPL software, and possibly being suied from honest mistakes.
Let me describe the typical GPL "enforcement" process (well documented: c.f. Linksys, BusyBox, lots of other examples):
The aim of the GPL enforcement process isn't to slap the violators down, it's to encourage them to come into compliance. Going to court is a last resort, if every other measure fails. If it's just that you've made an honest mistake, the people who are complaining will be very happy to give you the help you need to fix the problem, and to direct you to experienced sources of reliable legal advice on GPL compliance.
If you say, "People won't use GPL software in their products because they're afraid of the legal ramifications," you are doing nothing but spreading FUD.