4 ms·
That's exactly the way GPL misuses copyright to enforce terms on people who have not agreed to contracts with the software provider. Yes, it's a loophole in co
by Tuna-Fish 15y ago
That's exactly the way GPL misuses copyright to enforce terms on people who have not agreed to contracts with the software provider.
Yes, it's a loophole in copyright law that can be used to massively expand it's scope. It is, however, well established in court.
- jerf 15y agoI wouldn't agree with that characterization. GPL terms only apply to redistributors. If you receive GPL software, it's yours. It is only if you want to do something that copyright requires you to have permission to do that the GPL actually kicks in. If you never redistribute the software, the GPL actually lays zero constraints on you. This is in contrast to conventional EULAs, which forbid you from using the software until you agree to them (basically forbidding you to "receive" the software), and forbid you from any form of redistribution. The case hythloday cites is a EULA issue. There's nothing abusive about how the GPL uses copyright law. If you violate the GPL and redistribute the software anyhow, that simply means that you are redistributing software without the consent of the owner, which is a very direct copyright violation, not a strange penumbric emanation or anything.