ILIAS mix of GNU GPL with own terms

[Lutz Horn]

Hi Sonja,

* Sonja Branskat <Sonja.Branskat at FernUni-Hagen.de> [20010531 15:46 +0200]:
> Lutz Horn wrote:
> >"The licensee is obligated to carefully keep his password for the
> >   download area [of the web site] and not to disclose it to third
> >    parties. The licensee is liable for any damage which rise from a
> >   violation of this obligation of carefulnes."
> >So why this sentence? What if I download the software and immediatly
> >    put it on my own web site for download without the need for
> >    registration? Even though I don't disclose my password, I make
> >    available all the additional information I got from registering at
> >    the original web site. The licenser could interpred this as a
> >    violation of the obligation quoted above.
> 
> We, as the people being responsible for our server,  have to make sure
> that everybody who downloads the software from our server has accepted
> the AGB (our layer said).
> Third people, who accepted the AGBs, downloaded the software and who 
> want to distribute the software themselves are only required to 
> distribute the software under the GPL.

So if I get you right, you would not allow me to publish the password I
received after accepting the AGBs since by that I'd enable third parties
to get the software from _your_ server _without_ accepting the AGBs. Is
that correct?

> >  3. Under '5. Schutzrechte Dritter' the licenser states that according to
> >     his knowledge the software does not violate the rights of any third
> >     parties (in Germany). To keep it that way the licensse is obligated
> >     to (and again, my poor translation):
> >
> >     "not use the software for himself or under order of third parties for
> >     the purpose of searching for violation of third party rights",
[...]
> 
> According to our layer this has to be there to prevent that people try
> to make money by purposefully looking for violations.

May I ask, why? To play stupid: Why to you not want others to make money
from looking for violations?

> Reinhard Mueller wrote
> > One additional problem I see is: Will these AGBs be valid for people
> > that get this software from somewhere else? They will probably never
> > have seen them...
>
> they are not valid for for people who get this software from somewhere
> else

So you allow me to distribute the software to people who actively search
for patent violations? If I can distribute the software only under the
GNU GPL without forcing third parties to accept the terms in the AGBs
(includign the "Nebenpflichten") there is no way how you can prevent
violations of the "Nebenpflichten" by persons who have never agreed to
them due to receiving the software from me. If this is correct, why all
the fuss about the AGBs in the first place?

Even more important is the question: If the above is _not_ true and you
don't allow me to redistribute the software to persons who'll actively
search for patent violations, doesn't these additional conditions make
the software non free software?

I understand that you have to make certain precautions. But if you want
to redistribute your software under the GNU GPL you should face the
question concerning the freedom of your software. I doubt that the
FSF(E) would accept a software made non free by additional conditions to
be distributed under the GNU GPL.

Of course I can only speak for myself since I'm no member of the FSF or
the FSFE. But as far as my understanding of the subject goes there are
some difficulties which have not been resolved yet.

Regards
Lutz
-- 
Lutz Horn <lh at lutz-horn.de>
For PGP information see header.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20010531/904f4f06/attachment.sig>