GPL's Strength
Morty writes "So, why hasn't the GPL been successfully
challenged yet? In this article, Eben Moglen, General Counsel to the FSF, explains that the GPL is in a stronger legal position than most licenses. Most licenses restrict the user from doing what would otherwise be legal. Because the GPL (and presumably, other free/open software licenses) let the user do things that are otherwise illegal (copy and redistribute software), the GPL is in a stronger position to dictate terms. If the user doesn't accept the terms of the GPL, the default is for copying and redistribution to be forbidden under copyright law. I had never looked at it that way before. . ."
> Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs.
Oh no! The BSA is gonna discover all this *unlicensed* GPL-ware! I'd better get a-patchin' and a-redistributin', the Kopyright Kops are komin'...
Click here if you just like to click on shit.
Stop trying to hold a brotha down, aight?
I'm waiting for the day M$ includes a clause in the EULA that says anything written with it's office suite is the sole property of M$, to license, redistribute, and charge a lot more than it's worth!
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
Yeah, I lasted less than an hour with the whole blackout thing... seriously, I cracked and checked /. at about 0:46
sic transit gloria mundi