The reason the GPL hasn't been tested in court is because no-one has dared to take it that far. There's quite an interesting article here by Eben Moglen, the guy who enforces the GPL for the FSF.
That's a little like saying that the fact that the top 40 records are played on the radio is a *huge* worry for recording artists... Admittedly there has been some expensive litigation in that area;) What I'm trying to say is: You can't bash the GPL because some people might be tempted to abuse it. On the other hand, everyone who releases under the GPL knows this is a risk.
Well said. It's also worth pointing out that there is no requirement that anyone accepts the GPL to actually use the program. For the end user it just about boils down to a standard freeware disclaimer: "There is no waranty" allong with perhaps a gentle reminder: "This software is copyrighted, don't go round saying you wrote it from scratch yourself."
Slashdot Mirror
The reason the GPL hasn't been tested in court is because no-one has dared to take it that far. There's quite an interesting article here by Eben Moglen, the guy who enforces the GPL for the FSF.
That's a little like saying that the fact that the top 40 records are played on the radio is a *huge* worry for recording artists... Admittedly there has been some expensive litigation in that area ;)
What I'm trying to say is: You can't bash the GPL because some people might be tempted to abuse it. On the other hand, everyone who releases under the GPL knows this is a risk.
Well said. It's also worth pointing out that there is no requirement that anyone accepts the GPL to actually use the program. For the end user it just about boils down to a standard freeware disclaimer: "There is no waranty" allong with perhaps a gentle reminder: "This software is copyrighted, don't go round saying you wrote it from scratch yourself."