|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
the problem is not bad actors but a good actor who relies on either the
publishers assertions or contractual obligation and the uncertain nature of the
judicial system.
Let us suppose a user brings a lawsuit against a distributer of a Ubuntu
Certified computer alleging that the GPLv3 requires that they be given the
software keys necessary to modify the software they were provided. If denied the
keys I think the user may have grounds to sue for breach of license. I don't
have an opinion on the merits, that is for the courts to decide.
Given that rms has railed against TVIOization, his statements can be used to
create an apparent conflict between what the FSF has said and what they are
saying now. The FSF as copyright holder of GRUB2 could be painted as self
serving. I'm not sure I'd want rms to be deposed in such a case.
While the GPLv2 is a very clear license well within the bounds of copyright law,
the GPLv3 has adopted certain aspects of the EULA which are less clearly within
established law.
As I have pointed out before the Software Bully Boys have shied away from
legally trying to enforce the more esoteric terms of EULAs and stayed pretty
close to unauthorized copying.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
