If you back up one step in the distribution channel, Corel received the GPL'd distribution from "someone else".
Per the GPL, Corel's supplier could not impose a restriction, so Corel took the software (rightly so) and modified it, producing a derivative work (that's ok too), and then placed a restriction on the resulting distribution (not ok, per the GPL). It looks like Corel's "legal age" clause is a restriction in violation of GPL.
However, someone else stated in these threads that if the GPL is a legally binding contract (an assumption untested by any court), and if minors can not normally engage in the execution of legal contracts (not an assumption in many countries), then minors can not participate in the use and/or development and/or distribution of any GPL'd product.
In which case, by extension, minors can not legally use or purchase ANY software containing ANY sort of license agreement considered to be a "legally binding contract".
By further extension, any time software is purchased FOR a minor by a parent or other person of legal age, then that adult is in clear violation of a license agreement's "if you redistribute this then you are a crook" clause.
Isn't the passing of a software package from parent to child considered "redistribution"? Does it make a difference if the adult distributes it to another adult versus giving the software to a minor? I receieved MS Flight Simulator from a friend one year as a Christmas gift - is my friend now a crook? Am I a crook, too? (I dont remember ever reading "If you received this from someone else then you too are a crook"). The game wasnt "stolen" (he had the sales receipt), however, if he IS in violation, has my game been "illegally obtained" by me (have I been "receiving stolen goods")?
Now. let's extend this to Sony Playstation games, movies on Video Tape, Music CD's, any copyrighted works such as books, magazines, ad infinatum, ad nauseum...
The questions appear to be these: Is the GPL in fact legally binding (or ANY EULA for that matter), and are kids restricted from obtaining and/or developing and/or redistributing EULA'd products?
This is suddenly very interesting.::chuckle:: Any legal experts care to check me on this? Or will we all be seeing each other soon in jail?
Slashdot Mirror
If you back up one step in the distribution channel, Corel received the GPL'd distribution from "someone else".
Per the GPL, Corel's supplier could not impose a restriction, so Corel took the software (rightly so) and modified it, producing a derivative work (that's ok too), and then placed a restriction on the resulting distribution (not ok, per the GPL). It looks like Corel's "legal age" clause is a restriction in violation of GPL.
However, someone else stated in these threads that if the GPL is a legally binding contract (an assumption untested by any court), and if minors can not normally engage in the execution of legal contracts (not an assumption in many countries), then minors can not participate in the use and/or development and/or distribution of any GPL'd product.
In which case, by extension, minors can not legally use or purchase ANY software containing ANY sort of license agreement considered to be a "legally binding contract".
By further extension, any time software is purchased FOR a minor by a parent or other person of legal age, then that adult is in clear violation of a license agreement's "if you redistribute this then you are a crook" clause.
Isn't the passing of a software package from parent to child considered "redistribution"? Does it make a difference if the adult distributes it to another adult versus giving the software to a minor? I receieved MS Flight Simulator from a friend one year as a Christmas gift - is my friend now a crook? Am I a crook, too? (I dont remember ever reading "If you received this from someone else then you too are a crook"). The game wasnt "stolen" (he had the sales receipt), however, if he IS in violation, has my game been "illegally obtained" by me (have I been "receiving stolen goods")?
Now. let's extend this to Sony Playstation games, movies on Video Tape, Music CD's, any copyrighted works such as books, magazines, ad infinatum, ad nauseum...
The questions appear to be these: Is the GPL in fact legally binding (or ANY EULA for that matter), and are kids restricted from obtaining and/or developing and/or redistributing EULA'd products?
This is suddenly very interesting. ::chuckle:: Any legal experts care to check me on this? Or will we all be seeing each other soon in jail?