[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:01:21 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081105)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
"nothing other than this License grants you permission to
> propagate or modify any covered work"

When you receive code under a separate license, it doesn't
matter what the GPL says. The copyright holder is granting
a license to the recipient, and that license has nothing to
do with the GPL, and nothing to do with other versions of
the code that have been licensed under the GPL. Each copy
sent out by the copyright holder is a separate, unique work
with its own license terms.

That we actually have to explain and elaborate this is just
asinine. As an example from the purely proprietary world,
companies often license their software both by per-user and
by site licenses. Someone who has a per-user license can't
go to another company which has purchased a site license,
read those terms, and decide that it applies to his own
company and start making multiple copies.

As the phrase goes, you're not even wrong.

reply via email to

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