Posted on 09/21/2007 9:11:32 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I didn't sign for the license for thousands of dollars of software I've bought. Does that mean I'm free to do whatever I want?
In any case, you are missing a BIG concept here. Let's say that a judge tosses out the ENTIRE GPL in this case, the whole thing is declared unenforceable. Where does this leave the company?
It leaves them distributing copyrighted works without a license.
Doesn't matter to Golden Eagle -- he's made it pretty clear that it's OK by him to steal other people's work if he doesn't like those people.
That's the perfect definition. The catch in the GPL, MPL and CDDL is that the original work must remain free to be used by and open to all. In contrast, BSD works can be made closed, and thus no longer free.
This company doesn't have to publish its code under the GPL. However, doing so will likely be a much cheaper option than a court injunction to cease infringement that would probably kill the business.
So let me get this straight you think developers should spend copious time doing research to make sure they are not violating patents but not take the time to read a license?
I already told you on another thread I won’t respond to you as it took you months before you finally admitted to knowingly making up lies in defense of the Russian hackers who cracked Apple’s Unix, nor should anyone else. Maybe someone else is interested in your comments but based on the history of dishonesty I’m not wasting my time on them.
History of dishonesty? I have at least ten links to proven lies of yours.
Don't post unless you're willing to defend your arguments based on the facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.