3 ms·
We still rely on stuff like this. For example, just recently GNU Emacs requires modules to export a symbol called PLUGIN_IS_GPL_COMPATIBLE in order to enforce t
by jordigh 10y ago
We still rely on stuff like this. For example, just recently GNU Emacs requires modules to export a symbol called PLUGIN_IS_GPL_COMPATIBLE in order to enforce the GPL. Code is law, it seems. You would have to do something like modify and ship Emacs without this requirement as well as your plugin and then try to argue that the combination doesn't violate the GPL, which lawyers like Eben Moglen currently believe would not be viewed favourably by a judge.
- shultays 10y agoIs it illegal to export a variable named PLUGIN_IS_GPL_COMPATIBLE but not actually being compatible? There is a law for variables names?
- jordigh 10y agoIt shows willful infringement, I think, or something like it. Exporting the variable indicates intent of GPL compatibility. It's a bit like signing "I agree". If you're nevertheless infringing on the GPL despite writing in your code that you did not, lawyers think that judges would not look favourably upon your case. > There is a law for variables names? It's a funny thing that programmers try to view the law as a programming language (and even sometimes try to work around it that way, such as for example by writing GPL wrappers). Judges and juries don't care so much about that but kind of detail, but about what people declare and what they do in regards to the legal text. Also, it's all very subjective and slightly unpredictable. In the original Game Genie article, you see that they were doing one kind of legal workaround that is known to work: clean-room reverse engineering. That's why one team would come up with the codes and without telling details to the other guy they would ask him to test the code.