On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:18 pm, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
http://dansguardian.org/?page=copyright2
I read that as "your friend can download it for non-commercial use &
then distribute it to you for free under the GPL for you to use for
commercial purposes".
I don't agree. In my opinion the legal status of this document is that
it carries two licences but no option to freely chose between them if
you're using it commercially.
I read that as the terms of the download, true enough, but once the
author licenses to a non-commercial user under the GPL he licenses them
to:
... copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep
intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
... In the mentioned way to circumvent the license, there's the
question if
- the "GPL" really is a GPL here.
ISTM that if he's licensed the code to non-commercial users under the
GPL then the GPL must really be the GPL. I do see your point, but I
don't see how the author could dispute the above text of the license
he's issued.
There are some parallels to Sveasoft's position here - they'll give the
GPL source code to registered users who pay for it but they'll cancel
your registration & ban you from their forums if you do redistribute it
under the GPL. Although I think this is highly unethical (considering
that their GPL code is derived from other peoples' work) and that it
places "further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
granted" it's worth noting that neither has it been challenged legally,
nor has Sveasoft made any attempt to pursue legally anyone for
redistribution.
Stroller.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
