4 ms·
What do you think is more likely? 1. An entity that that has been dealing with GPL software and the attendent licencing issues for decades fundamentally got it
by unmole 3y ago
What do you think is more likely?
1. An entity that that has been dealing with GPL software and the attendent licencing issues for decades fundamentally got it wrong.
2. Your understanding of the GPL is incorrect.
- rincebrain 3y agoI think they're probably correct, actually. As written, yes, this is not a GPL violation, they're not directly stopping you from redistributing what you were given, they're just choosing to not do future business with you. In practice, judges often really hate people trying to do cute end runs around the intent of things, particularly anything that's more than a handshake, like a license. I would suspect they're betting heavily on nobody being big enough to be willing to try suing IBM-sized legal departments, and settling without losing the ability to argue this is valid if they're wrong.
- snovv_crash 3y agoI think business heads are putting pressure and they're trying to walk in the grey space of what the GPL forbids clearly by intent but not by explicit language. Whether this ends up in court is another matter.