Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Sep 2010 23:38 UTC
Legal EULAs, and whatever nonsense they may contain, are legally binding in the US. Have a great weekend!
Thread beginning with comment 440443
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: A few points
by lemur2 on Sat 11th Sep 2010 08:04 UTC in reply to "A few points"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

The GPL is free code that requires you to change how you license your code if you use it. I don't think anyone here thinks thats wrong, even though that power goes WAY beyond the power a person would have if they sold you something. When Linksys (for example) broke the terms of the license, nobody said that the GPL should be overturned, they wanted the freakin code, because if Linksys didn't want to abide by the terms of the GPL, they shouldn't have used it.


Nitpick: the GPL says absolutely nothing about your code. The GPL addresses only what permissions you are granted for GPL code (written by someone else). That is to say, what you are permitted to do with THEIR code. Not your code.

Your code (that is to say, code that you wrote) you may do whatever you like with.

Anyone else's code ... you require permission from the authors to do anything at all with it. This is copyright law.

In the Linksys case ... it wasn't Linksys's code, it was GPL code written by someone else. It would have been exactly the same outcome if Linksys had used stolen Windows source code from Microsoft and used that.

Having clarified that point ... carry on.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: A few points
by bogomipz on Sat 11th Sep 2010 14:51 in reply to "RE: A few points"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

Well, let's say you write a 10000 line program, but in that program you use 100 lines of GPL code somebody else wrote. Then you relase the binary. According to the GPL, you now have to release your entire code base under GPL, even if your plan was to keep it closed source.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: A few points
by lemur2 on Sat 11th Sep 2010 17:45 in reply to "RE[2]: A few points"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well, let's say you write a 10000 line program, but in that program you use 100 lines of GPL code somebody else wrote. Then you relase the binary. According to the GPL, you now have to release your entire code base under GPL, even if your plan was to keep it closed source.


Not so. Look up the definition of "derivative work" under copyright law.

A derivative work is a later work which contains in part major elements of another earlier copyrighted work.

So, your 10000 line program contains just 100 lines of an earlier work. 1%. Probably insufficient to be consider a "major element" of the earlier work.

But, even if it is considered to fall within the definition of a derived work, then ownership of the derived work is split between the authors in accordance with the level of their relative contributions. This means that the authors of the GPL code have 1% ownership in the program.

The derived work can only be distributed when all the owners reach mutual agreement on the rights to distribution. In this example, you could probably either pay the GPL authors a small amount for a commercial license to use their 100 lines, or alternatively offer to give them 1% of the profits.

Edited 2010-09-11 17:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3