| Bill Jonas on Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:59:11 -0400 |
|
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 07:20:08PM -0400, Jason wrote:
> I think one of the main points is that you had to agree to the terms
> of the GNU Public License to use the "Linux" kernel.
Actually, you are required to do no such thing. It would be perfectly
legal for me to disagree with the GPL and still use software licensed
under the GPL. The important distinction is that the GPL is not a
license to *use* (End-User License Agreement), but it is a license to
*distribute* (Re-Distributer License Agreement?). Put another way,
here's what the GPL itself says about the issue (section 5, in its
entirety):
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
(This is why it irritates me when I see software installers with
EULA-style dialog boxes sporting Agree/Disagree buttons with the GPL in
the box. Although it could be argued that you could actually be saying,
"Yes, I agree that I do not have to accept this license to use the
software.")
A typical software license starts by presuming that you have no rights
to use the software, since in order to use it, you must first copy the
program from the CD-ROM to your hard disk, and then copy it from your
disk into RAM, because it's illegal to make a copy without special
permission from the copyright holder, isn't it? Wrong -- it's the
manner in which the work is intended to be used. So if the copyright
holder *knew* and *intended* for this to happen, how can it be
infringement? Simple answer -- it's not, and those who tell you
otherwise want you to agree to a EULA. ;-)
On the other hand, the GPL starts out by presuming that you have full
right to use the software, and outlines some *additional* freedoms you
get if you decide to agree to a set of terms. This is why I don't
believe that the GPL will be found invalid in court and EULAs will --
EULAs attempt to place additional restrictions on the user above and
beyond the scope of copyright law, while the GPL instead grants extra
rights in exchange for the consideration (compensation, if you will, or
quid pro quo) of you accepting its terms and adopting it as the license
for the derivative work.
Since I'm already rambling, I'll just point out that nothing's stopping
you from modifying GPL'd software and keeping the changes secret.
(Common misconception I've seen people have, though not necessarily in
PLUG.) Use it yourself, use it in your business; the GPL only kicks in
when you distribute it outside your organization (to a friend, to the
public, whatever).
Sorry for chasing rabbits here...
--
Bill Jonas * bill@billjonas.com * http://www.billjonas.com/
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Attachment:
pgpg9QPMFFAl1.pgp
|
|