| That is why the GPL is so effective. If it is valid, you can only use the
software on the stated terms, and if it is invalid, copyright law says thay you
can't use it at all. The only possible hope for a successful challenge is to
show that the part of the GPL which allows you to use the code is valid, while
the part that requires you to comply with the terms of use is not. IANAL, but
instinct tells me that there is very little chance of that, otherwise we would
have seen it in the SCOundrel's cases and others. It is rather obvious that the
person writing a license, to give permission where none otherwise exists, has
the upper hand because they own the code and can license it on any terms that
they wish, except that in many countries certain forms of discrimination against
individuals would be illegal, i.e. you could not disallow its use by ethnic
minorities, disabled, etc. But there are generally no laws that say what you can
and can't allow as regards distribution, copying and modification, as long as
they apply to everyone, as they do in the case of GPL. You could almost
certainly get away with discriminating against corporations as opposed to
individuals, for instance, and some licenses do not allow business use, but the
GPL allows no such restriction. I know that the term seems to be applied more
commonly to patent licenses, but the term FRAND applies rather nicely to the
GPL. It is free (although you can charge for the cost of distribution, support
etc), reasonable (ask the majority of developers who prefer it, and countless
end users) and non discriminatory, as it applies equally to the likes of the
mighty IBM (who apparently have no problem living with it) and the
underprivileged kids with OLPC/XO machines in the middle of Africa. So if it
is non-discriminatory I can't imagine what weird kind of law could be applied to
force seperation of its several parts, such that some apply and others do not.
Unless, of course, they challenge the copyright owner's right to place some
restrictions on the use of the code. But how? It is his or hers to do with as
they wish, or not. I think the whole thing is merely legal posturing from
people who have done the wrong thing and just can't admit it. They would prefer
an expensive trial, so they can blame the judge, not themselves, maybe? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
