Messages in this thread | | | From | "David Schwartz" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 - fix mcount GPL bogosity. | Date | Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:28:43 -0800 |
| |
> "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> writes:
> > This is an obviously-wrong argument,
> Even if it's proven wrong in the end, the defendant may at least be > found acting in a good faith.
If they were in fact acting in good faith, they should be found to have been acting in good faith. If you think this reasonably might result in confusion, the solution is better documentation.
> > All you can do in code is implement technical things.
> The GPL itself is the weapon, not the technical measures which can be > legally trivially disabled (even if the modules are illegal).
Right.
> > You cannot enforce or > > implement the license because the GPL prohibits that.
> Not sure what do you mean. I was under impression that a copyright > holder can enforce GPL :-)
I mean you can't enforce or implement the license in code because the GPL specifically permits modification without exclusion. Someone cannot use the GPL to force you to use code you do not wish to use. The GPL does not contain any technical enforcement mechanism and would not permit one because it would be a "further restriction" (it's a restriction, it's not in the GPL, so it's further).
Perhaps some kind of technical rule that didn't prohibit anything the GPL allowed might be a legitimate license enforcement scheme, not restricting anything "further". That's a stretch, but the GPL symbol tagging doesn't apply since it prohibits non-GPL modules from using those symbols even if they are not distibuted. This is not a restriction found in the GPL, so it's a "further restriction". (Which is fine. Not being able to remove any file as 'root' is a restriction not found in the GPL too. The point is, these are technical restrictions, not license enforcement mechanisms.)
DS
| |