🚀 go-pugleaf

WARNING! Possibly uninformed legal speculation follows!
(Does a net.lawyer equate to a "space lawyer"?)

In article <13160@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>How about "does the GNU copyright notice protect your code from
>'exploitation'"?  I've never been convinced that it would.  I'd have a
>lot more confidence in it if the "license" actually required a
>signature, but those are difficult to obtain via FTP.

I would say that the answer is certainly yes.  "The problem with the
GPL is that it is called a License."  Under copyright, you have
certain exclusive rights (making copies, making derivative works,
etc.).  All the GPL does is state under which conditions the owner of
the copyright (usually the FSF) will permit you to make copies,
derivative works, and the like.  That is, it does not really require
signing (at least not by you) because you wouldn't be able to do
*anything* with the software if you do not agree to their terms under
which you can copy, etc.  The GPL is a really a *unilateral*
relinquishment of certain of the rights of copyright holder, under certain
specified conditions.  If you don't agree to the conditions, then the
holder does not relinquish those rights to you.

Actually, I think the GPL is probably on a stronger footing than
"shrink-wrap" "licenses" in the micro industry, at least in the US.
Whether this is true in the Netherlands or not...

-GAWollman


Garrett A. Wollman - wollman@emily.uvm.edu

Disclaimer:  I'm not even sure this represents *my* opinion, never
mind UVM's, EMBA's, EMBA-CF's, or indeed anyone else's.