Slashdot Mirror
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. . ."
Because the GPL (and presumably, other free/open software licenses) let the user do things that are otherwise illegal (copy and redistribute software)
I don't get this.
Microsoft's EULA lets you use software for which they are the copyright holder. Using it without would be illegal.
Every software licence lets you do things that are otherwise illegal - that's the whole point of buying a license
Me giving Microsoft money in exchange for a copy of the software gives me the right to do what I like with the copy of their software that I have purchased (within the law). Much of Microsofts EULA (attempts to) restrict what I can do with the software (such as use the software on a non Windows OS).
The GPL on the other hand grants you extra rights. Once you have obtained the software you can do whatever the hell you want with it personally. On top of that you have the extra rights which you otherwise wouldn't, ie the option of distibuting the software, if you are willing to obey a few rules (ie granting the exra rights you have been given to others).
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
something you *haven't* signed can't restrict your rights in any way
Why don't you *read* the article. It demonstrates in plain simple language that your statement is absolutely wrong. You didn't sign any copyright law but it restricts your right to copy anything protected by it. The GPL just says that the copyright holder will not sue your ass if you copy their software as long as you abide by some simple conditions.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
To make things even worse, people are trying to discuss something that's been chewed, re-chewed and over-chewed who knows how many times already. Once and for all - GPL is good, it protects people's work and creativity and prevents bustards from steeling ideas.
Couple of hours installing Linux on a friend's PC and/or promoting virtues of GNU/Linux/GPL/Free/Good... would be time spent in a much better way.
This was not meant as a flame or such but feel free to mod to the ground, who cares...Either that or nobody wants to spend the money it will take to challenge it. My guess is that what is going to happen is that someone will not back down to the demands of the FSF when they are found out of compliance with the GPL. At that point, it will be up to the FSF to prove it is valid rather than someone actually challenging it.
But, really, is there any reason this guy wouldn't say that it is strong? It amazes me that proponents of a certain issue always publish these "epiphanies" of how their issue is strong, sound, and the good cause. In any other forum, the conclusions published as such would be viewed with a lot of skepticism.
How could it be anything but strong? You have no legal rights to GPL software other than those gained by agreeing to the license. The epiphany you're refering to is in the GPL.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
"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. . ."
You've never read the GPL then.
I recommend that everyone who uses GPL software read the GPL. It's not hard. It is a legal document, but it is written in plain and simple language because the authors intended it to be understood (shock! horror!). The section in question is an absolute bloody work of genius. I quote:
"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."
It's so beautiful, I may just cry openly.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Knowledge does not have an expiration date. I, for one, am pleased that this article was published as a /. item. I hadn't read this document, because I didn't know it existed. I wasn't actively looking for this information, but now that I have read it, I'm happy I did. This article has given me motivation to dig further, and such an active response is always a Good Thing(tm).
assert(expired(knowledge));