Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:36:51 +0100
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: lm@bitmover.com, Matthew Jacob <lydianconcepts@gmail.com>,
       Jeff Sipek <jeffpc@optonline.net>,
       Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed
Message-ID: <20050214203651.GA24554@stusta.de>
References: <20050214020802.GA3047@bitmover.com> <58cb370e05021404081e53f458@mail.gmail.com> <20050214150820.GA21961@optonline.net> <20050214154015.GA8075@bitmover.com> <7579f7fb0502141017f5738d1@mail.gmail.com> <20050214185624.GA16029@bitmover.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050214185624.GA16029@bitmover.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2449
Lines: 61

Disclaimer:
I did never use BK and I do not plan to use it.

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:56:24AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> All we are trying to do is 
> 
>     1.  Provide the open source community with a useful tool.
>     2.  Prevent that from turning into the open source community
>         creating a clone of our tool.
>...
> I agree that this sucks, having a license that restricts your creativity
> is very annoying.  On the other hand, you don't have to agree to it.
> You only have to agree to it if you want the benefits of using the tool.
> It's not much different than deciding whether you want to buy it, there
> is a cost and a benefit and for some people the benefits outweigh the
> costs and for some they don't.
> 
> If anyone can think of a better way for us to both let you use the tool
> and protect our hard work, I'm listening.  The repeated outrage over the
> restrictions isn't any more fun for me than it is for you.  Any answer,
> however, has to take our issues into consideration as well as yours.

I don't know about copyright law in other countries (and the USA have 
both a pretty different legal system and a pretty different copyright 
law than Germany), but in Germany the clause you mentioned is simply 
void according to German copyright law.

German copyright law doesn't distinguish whether you get money for 
allowing the usage of the program or not.

The licence is still valid but the clause is void.

I can accept a void licence clause because this doesn't make it 
non-void. That's not uncommon. Perhaps 95% of all software licences 
contain clauses that are simply void.

In case you ask:
No, there is no case law in Germany - we have a different legal system.

If you like it or not - at least for people in Germany, I see no way how 
the law allows you to enforce what you are trying to do.

You can say it might be morally wrong to break this licence clause - but 
this doesn't make it illegal.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/