From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox +code
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:23:08 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAELDPKAA.davids@webmaster.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41911E43.1090607@nortelnetworks.com>
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > They don't stop you, they just restrict you.
>
> They restrict you from getting new updates, they don't restrict you from
> distributing.
Umm, they restrict you from distributing. You don't get new updates if you
distribute.
If I say to my son, "if you hang out with people I don't like, I won't let
you use the car". This is a restriction on his hanging out with who he likes
and his using the car. If I promised not to put any further restrictions on
*either* his hanging out with who he like *or* his using the car, I'd be
violating my promise by the restriction.
> The GPL says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
> recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein." Note the "granted
> herein" part. They
> can put all kinds of other restrictions on anything else, as long
> as they don't
> keep you from excercising your rights to modify and/or
> redistribute the code
> released under the GPL.
Exactly. But by conditioning the receipt of updates on failure to
distribute, they restrict distribution. (They also restrict the distribution
of updates, of course.) Any restriction of the form "If X, then Y" restricts
both X and Y.
I can't imagine what would constitute an "additional restriction" if this
isn't one.
> > Look, this really is simple. When the GPL talks about "additional
> > restrictions", it doesn't mean the restrictions found in the
> > GPL. It means
> > restrictions found elsewhere, such as in private contracts. (Where else
> > would the restrictions be?!)
> I believe you have misunderstood the GPL. They only disallow further
> restrictions on the rights that the GPL grants. They don't say
> anything about
> other contracts or obligations.
Yes, they do. The whole point of the "additional restrictions" clause is to
*prohibit* other contracts or obligations that act to restrict your ability
to exercise the rights under the GPL.
If not to prevent other contracts or obligations that act as restrictions,
what purpose does the GPL "additional restriction" clause serve?!
DS
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-09 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-07 17:27 GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code Shawn Starr
2004-11-07 19:33 ` Raphaël Rigo LKML
2004-11-07 19:38 ` Shawn Starr
2004-11-07 21:16 ` Daniel Egger
2004-11-08 1:14 ` David Schwartz
2004-11-08 14:56 ` Pedro Venda (SYSADM)
2004-11-08 20:53 ` David Schwartz
2004-11-08 15:24 ` Alan Cox
2004-11-08 19:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2004-11-08 21:33 ` Pedro Venda (SYSADM)
2004-11-08 21:54 ` David Schwartz
2004-11-08 23:25 ` Alan Cox
2004-11-08 20:53 ` GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox +code David Schwartz
2004-11-08 23:00 ` Alan Cox
2004-11-09 2:32 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2004-11-09 4:08 ` David Rees
2004-11-09 4:23 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2004-11-09 9:47 ` Alan Cox
2004-11-09 19:30 ` David Schwartz
2004-11-09 19:45 ` Chris Friesen
2004-11-09 20:23 ` David Schwartz [this message]
2004-11-09 20:48 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-11-09 23:06 ` Alan Cox
2004-11-10 1:47 ` David Schwartz
2004-11-10 9:27 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2004-11-10 18:14 ` Alan Cox
2004-11-10 19:32 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-11-10 20:09 ` Stuart MacDonald
2004-11-10 21:18 ` Trever L. Adams
2004-11-09 23:22 ` Alan Cox
2004-11-10 1:34 ` Kyle Moffett
2004-11-10 2:01 ` Michael Poole
2004-11-10 3:02 ` Kyle Moffett
2004-11-10 4:14 ` Michael Poole
2004-11-10 4:28 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2004-11-10 21:11 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-11-10 23:09 ` Kyle Moffett
2004-11-10 22:14 ` Alan Cox
2004-11-15 14:47 ` David Woodhouse
2004-11-10 23:26 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2004-11-10 5:07 ` David Schwartz
2004-11-10 1:47 ` David Schwartz
2004-11-12 17:04 ` Horst von Brand
2004-11-09 21:13 ` Stuart MacDonald
2004-11-09 2:23 ` GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code Paul Jakma
2004-11-10 10:21 ` David Woodhouse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAELDPKAA.davids@webmaster.com \
--to=davids@webmaster.com \
--cc=cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.