A Beginner's Look At GPL Enforceability

sirmikester writes "I wrote a term paper for my University of Illinois law class about the enforceability of the GPL. Unlike most of the papers dealing with the GPL, this one was aimed at a primarily non-technical audience. While a little bit rough around the edges, I'm sure it could give all of the non-technical folks out there a look at the GPL, and why its so important to all of us. There is also a powerpoint presentation available of the speech that I gave to the class about the paper. "

Comments

GPL-ed!?!

[vijaya_chandra]

Are the paper/presentation GPLed?!?!

PowerPoint?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not OpenOffice.org formats?

Re:Trademarks must be respected...

[Mr. Slippery]

Pre-pending GNU to Linux is an affront to the Linux trademark. Microsoft would be furious if people started advertising "x86/Windows XP".

"Intel x86/Windows XP" would be an accurate description of what are otherwise known as "Wintel" systems; the combination of the Windows XP operating system with the Intel x86 hardware platform. (As opposed to an "AMD/Windows XP" system, for example.)

Similarly, "GNU/Linux" is an accurate description of a GNU system running on top of the Linux kernel. (As opposed to a "GNU/Hurd" system, or a "GNU/*BSD" system, or an embedded system running some proprietary software on top of the Linux kernel.)

Neither is an affront to any trademark. In fact misusing "Linux" to refer to the entire system rather than the kernel would be improper use of the trademark, something like calling all sodas "Coke" or all photocopiers "Xerox".

Consider changing "open source" to "free software"

[jbn-o]

The open source movement did not exist at the time the GPL, copyleft, the free software movement, and the GNU project started. It seems odd, therefore, to give credit to a movement that had nothing to do with creating these documents and forming these ideas. As it stands, you appear to be using the terms "open source" and "free software" interchangably, as though they refer to the same thing. However the open source movement stands for a different philosophy than the free software movement.

Interesting issues not mentioned

[pdcryan]

First, I find a interesting (by interesting I mean big omission) that a contract analysis of the GPL could not mention the UCC (uniform commercial code). Either article 2 (sale of goods, which many courts have applied to software licensing - even though it doesn't really fit) or draft UCC article 2B.

http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/proj/linux/gpl- ucc2b.html

How about trade secret protection? Might the Uniform Trade Secret Act (state laws) protect a company who is in violation of the GPL from having to publish their code?

This is only the tip of the iceberg. This paper didn't really tell me anything that most /.ers already know.

Re:Conclusion bugs me

[Elwood P Dowd]

Especially since it kindof *is* proven legally: No one has challenged it successfully. That's very indicative, given the value of all the copylefted software out there.