Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261834AbUKJBtX (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:49:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261831AbUKJBrz (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:47:55 -0500 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:64520 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261830AbUKJBrb (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:47:31 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: Cc: "Dmitry Torokhov" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rapha=EBl_Rigo_LKML?= Subject: RE: GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox +code Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:47:23 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <1100042579.16729.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:23:53 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:23:56 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1799 Lines: 48 > On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 19:30, David Schwartz wrote: > > Look, this really is simple. When the GPL talks about "additional > > restrictions", it doesn't mean the restrictions found in the > > GPL. It means > > restrictions found elsewhere, such as in private contracts. (Where else > > would the restrictions be?!) > It talks about additional restrictions imposed on your GPL granted > rights. Precisely. And it says there cannot be any. > It seems very simple to me. Future upgrade services are a > seperate contractual matter. They are not separate since they are conditioned upon your failure to exercise your GPL rights. > Your whole position is positively > ridiculous. Very large amounts of GPL code is released where you don't > get updates, ever, whatever you do. Yet you don't object to those. I don't object to those because there is no additional restriction on the exercise of your GPL rights. Conduct which is discretionary can become objectionable if the reason is objectionable. I am saying that you cannot condition a decision to give someone code that is covered by the GPL on their promise not to exercise their rights under the GPL. You cannot impose a penalty upon someone for exercising their rights under the GPL. All these things are additional restrictions. Please explain to me what you think the GPL prohibition against "additional restrictions" means if not to prohibit the distribution of GPL works conditioned on promises not to exercise your rights under the GPL (and penalties for exercising them). DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/