Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
The terms of a license have nothing to do with copyright law. You can
agree to anything in a license as long as it isn't actually illegal. An
exclusion of copyright rules is simply what you get in return.
With the GNU GPL you don't have to agree with anything. It is an
unilateral grant of rights as long as you fulfill some obligations when
you distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.
If you don't agree to their terms you don't have the freedom to
redistribute.
If you don't abide with those obligations, you don't have the permission
to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies because copyright
restricts it so.
Exactly, the license is very restrictive.
Even though they can't exactly force you to apply their terms to other
people's work, it is as close as you can get. They withhold your
freedom to redistribute until you have agreed to their terms - and in
the GPL case these must apply to all other combined work.
Yes they can. Very simply it's the quid-pro-quod required of you in
order for you to distribute pristine, modified or derived copies.
Is there even a name for quid-pro-quo when it attempts to involve third
parties in the way the GPL interferes with combining existing works with
different terms?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
