|
|
|
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
But I understand the point which is
that there is no excuse for them to
be pleading ignorance.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
You do *not* sign a GPL license.
All that GPL does is to give you a defense against the code's
copyrights owner(s). You can defend yourself from claims that
you copied without permission by claiming that by obeying the
GPL license conditions you got an implicit permission.
If you remove all the bells and whistles, Twin Peaks' defense
is simple: "we did not know that obeying the GPL conditions is
needed to have the implicit permission".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 03:20 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 06:37 AM EDT |
| How far can willful blindness go? Isn't it expected that if
you sign the
GPLv2 license and are a business that you should
understand it's
terms?
You don't sign any GPL license. There's also no contract. But
as a business,
especially one related to software, you can be expected to know
that you can't
just take someone else's software and distribute copies of it,
unless you have a
license. And if you see there's a GPL license or any other
license attached to the
software, you can be expected to read the license and
make sure that it actually
allows you to make copies, and if you don't
understand it, then you can't make
copies or you risk huge problems if you make
copies and get it wrong. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
