On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Hawaii Linux Institute wrote: >We need to realize that the validity of GPL is closely tied to the >notion of shrink-wrap licenses.
IANAL, but I believe both are based on copyright law. >First, since there are no face-to-face negotiations, do you really need >to abide by the terms of GPL and open your source code? I don't think 'face-to-face negotiations' are required. GPL is a legal document. IF IT APPLIES, then you will abide by it because it's the law. Or the FSF will go after you. The 'if it applies' sentence fragment is very important. Because no one is forced to accept the GPL. But if you don't accept the GPL, then you don't get to use the software. And by use, I mean make derivative works. >If you have to open your source code, to what extent? To the extent that the GPL specifies. The GPL is very clear on this issue, and I qoute: "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or," I don't think there's any wiggle room here. >Since there is no uniform law regarding shrink-wrap licenses, answer to >this question will of course vary from state to state. True. >Then, there is the issue of whether the GPL will bind you forever. Both >issues have been advanced by David Boise of SCO. The GPL is based on copyright law. It binds you for the same duration as copyright binds you. --jc -- Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]