[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Another GNU License Question

From: mike3
Subject: Re: Another GNU License Question
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:02:03 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

On Aug 14, 5:24 pm, David Kastrup <> wrote:
> mike3 <> writes:
> > On Aug 12, 3:15 am, David Kastrup <> wrote:
> >> No.  It is directed at you.  If the guy redistributes your program,
> >> you can sue him for misappropriation, not for breach of license,
> >> because the programmer got no license in the first place.
> > It is directed at him in the sense that he'd be the one who'd be
> > getting the "penalty" (ie. the suit mentioned above.).
> But that has nothing to do with the GPL.  No license, no rights.  It
> does not matter whether "no license" is "no GPL" or "no EULA".
> Nothing is nothing.

But I thought the software is licensed under the GPL anyway.
Isn't it "morally" required to release it under GPL, anyway?

> >> > But does the terms under the GPL mean that _you_ cannot go and
> >> > grant the hired guy permission to distribute your program even if
> >> > for some odd reason you wanted to?
> >> He does not get a license in the course of the described business
> >> transaction, but nothing precludes you from giving him one
> >> explicitly, _if_ you have a license to do so.
> > Ie., if you owned all the program, for example. But why doesn't this
> > hired guy automatically get license to distribute your "free"
> > software?
> > Is it because the "free" software might not be completed?
> You are laboring under the delusion that the license is something
> which somehow contaminates and infects the software.  This is not so.
> The license is a grant of rights to the software.  This grant of
> rights can be different for any transfer of a copy to a recipient.

I did not say anything about contaminating the software. I'm
really confused, I have no idea where you're coming from

> Some software might have been transfered to you under conditions.  It
> is this transfer that binds you, not something inside the software
> itself.

So you're saying the worker has to get a different set of
terms, or you as the author have to hire the worker under
a different set of terms, or you as the author don't have
to do anything? I'm taking this from the perspective of the
author who has written an original work and wants to
license it under GPL.

> --
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]