On 8/31/07, Gerhard Killesreiter <gerhard@killesreiter.de> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Strauss schrieb:
Cog Rusty wrote:
I am all for system thinking and intended uses, but somehow I am losing the "parts" view here, things like responsibilities, consequences, legal or other.
Suppose I write a spelling checker for MS Word in VBA (I don't really know VBA, just an example), with the clear intention to be used with MS Word and nothing else. I slap a GPL license file with no caveats on it and I distribute it. What happens now? What does it mean not to be GPL-compliant in this case, practically?
MS or anyone else can take it, package it in some other software and sell it, claiming that it is not really GPL? Is that it?
One of the beautiful things about the GPL is that, when it fails, normal copyright takes over. So, if the GPL is shown to be invalid on something you've created, other parties have *no rights* to distribute your work without other permission.
I see. So practically nobody would have an interest in challenging the GPL status of my software, not MS or another vendor, not the user, not I (except if I changed my mind later). Only a project like Drupal might challenge it, with the intention to maintain the "virality" of its software.
Also, because I have met lawyers before, are there any information about how the "system" interpretation ever did in court?
For better or worse, the GPL hasn't seen too much time in court.
Not much, but there have been several recent cases in Germany where hardware vendors selling Linux based appliances were taken to court and the courts ordered them to abide by the GPL and include source code etc.
See http://gpl-violations.org/
Cheers, Gerhard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG2Ehxfg6TFvELooQRAv7mAJ46XYQtaRrlW+Rq05xzqT+mrDKJmwCgsIZs mp/lKjcDv/h3crOCsHPFm5c= =ggyT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----