Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]

Andrew Pimlott
2003-09-14T01:24:03Z

On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 03:30:35PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> If the work would not have been restricted without it and is restricted
> with it and you can't remove it, it's an additional restriction. If not,
> what would an additional restriction be?

You can remove it. But if you remove for with the obvious purpose
of abetting the distribution of non-GPL derived work, don't be
surprised to get smacked by courts who don't care for your technical
sophistry.

> > Its merely showing the intent of the author.
>
> The intent of the author has no bearing on whether or not a work is
> derived.

I've noticed it's become common to say this, but (NAL) I doubt it's
true. I would expect a court to respect the author's intent within
some narrow range that would otherwise be ambiguous. Intent and
community standards play a large role in law. If enough people wear
a path across private property, it can become an easement.

Andrew