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. . ."

Comments

Re:GPL

[gazbo]

Yup, Micro$$$oft0rZ is proven wrong, because the counsel of the FSF said so. And as we know, it is *actually impossible* for lawyers to be biased, wrong or untruthful. Time and time again we hear of people's cases being thrown out because the lawyer stands up and announces 'Your Honour, I have decided that my client does not have a case, so will save time by announcing it now.'

Perhaps my mathematical outlook on life gives me a different definition of the word 'proof'.

Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general

[jrumney]

Although, if you decide you won't use any of the additional rights the GPL grants, are you still bound by it if you, say, bought a RedHat package full of GNU software? You're paying to use it, right?

The GPL doesn't restrict your use of the software. So you are free to use the software whether you agree with the GPL or not. It is only when you distribute GPLed code that you agree to be bound by its terms.