sergio masci wrote:
> Some a*hole can't just invent copyleft and expect it to have the same 
> legal weight as copyright. Oh yes I forgot they've thrown up a smoke 
> screen by devising the GPL, which in my mind holds even less water.

The GPL is simply a license which the *copyright holder* has chosen to 
license his work under....   I don't hear you complaining that Microsoft 
don't allow you to use their licensed products in your works in a way 
that they don't want you to.

> Firstly, here in the UK, you cannot supply goods or services and then 
> apply restrictions after the fact. Providing all the source code and then 
> saying "actually you can now only use it the way I say you can" is a BIG 
> no no.

Actually, you got it backwards.   The source code is only provided to 
you if you agree to the terms of the license which happens to be the GPL 
in this discussion.  If you don't agree to the license accompanying the 
source code, then you can feel free to return the software, and receive 
a full refund of the purchase price paid.

If you believe that the "goods and services" were provided without 
restrictions then I suggest you look at the very code that you are 
claiming is being abused.   I have yet to see a GPL distribution which 
does not clearly lay out what the terms and conditions for the use of 
the code is.   You may *think* it's free but it's not.   Take a look in 
any source code file from the linux kernel, or almost any other GPL'ed 
work, and you'll find that it is clearly marked as a copyrighted work, 
and that use of the work is subject to the GPL.

> Secondly, if anyone were mad enough to try to enforce GPL through 
> litigation, the most they could hope to win are damages.

Are you missing something?  Have you not noticed the slew of GPL 
lawsuits going on right now, in which the GPL owners are very much 
asserting their rights and winning?   Sometimes over as simple an act as 
not including the text of the GPL license with the product.

It is as simple as this:

If you want to use someone's code you have to agree to the terms that 
they laid out when they provided it to you.    In this case it means 
that you have to provide a copy of the license and make the source code 
as modified by you (and as running in the device) available to any 
downstream users.   That is the *price* you paid for the code when you 
obtained it.   If you don't like it then you don't have to use the code.

If you *have* used the code but haven't complied with the license, then 
the copyright owner of the code is entitled to see that you comply with 
the license, and possibly pay damages.  I think most GPL authors just 
want you to comply with the license.

-forrest
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist