Alex Hudson wrote:
That's not the standard description, and I don't think it's a point of view the FSF would subscribe to. The GNU GPL is a license, not a
The GPL isn't a covenant between two individuals, therefore isn't a contract. I'm fairly sure that's the standard/intended thinking.
This is where, as I mentioned, contract law starts to become fuzzy from country to country. From the viewpoint in Canadian law, it is a contract, plain and simple -- otherwise it is nothing, and has no merit beyond a work of fiction.
I always saw the GPL as an agreement between two parties: 1) the distributor; 2) the recipient. The distributor is allowing you to further distribute the code, and derivaties, on the premise that you distribute under the same terms.
I am talking strictly about distribution, the "right to use" the software is very unclear, stands in the same ground as EULA's do.
They distributed it, but did not release it. They did not licence it
I see a judge with many headaches... In any case, if this makes it to trial, the judgement will be required reading for contract and IP lawyers. ;)
under the GPL, and the people who released it didn't have rights to licence it under the GPL (iff SCO are correct ;). It's a copyright license violation, I'm not sure that automatically means the GPL would
Yes, and no. Two options: a) SCO willingly entered the contract but made a mistake. The assessment of damages and reasonable actions is thus open for debate, but it is unlikely for a judge/arbitrator to open up the code -- they tend to only think in dollar values. b) SCO maintains, and succeeds in showing, they never entered the contract. In this case it is pretty much up to SCO to decide what to do, within the realm of reasonable action. Charging a license fee for linux is well within reason, as you stated before, it is really not their problem that it removes the ability to further distribute Linux. But as I said after, they then participated in unfair trade practices and open themselves up to lawsuits of those that bought their Linux.
For example, if a company released a proprietary version of a piece of GPL'd software, I'm not sure you could force them to GPL that software: the law would allow you to stop them selling the product, and allow you to claim damages, but I don't think you can automatically gain access to the code.
I'm not sure that you couldn't force them to GPL that software. If I am a copyright holder in the code, and they sell it, they have agreed then to the GPL I had on my original code (as they have no other right to distribute). If their code is not GPL, then they have failed to meet their obligation in the agreement.
From my viewpoint, I don't find it hard to believe that a Judge would accept that the company needs to uphold its obligation. I could simply refuse a monetary compensation, or I could agree to them ceasing to distribute the code.
What is clear is that the company has to offer *something* of value in exchange for distributing the code. And if I disagree with that offer, it will end up in the court system and a judge or arbitrator will have to decide what I get in return.