In reference to: > > > > > I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is > > > > > interested in making a completely, utterly free > > > > > software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that prohibits > > > > > putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of > > > > > nonsense they've been pulling,
I wrote: > > If you don't own the code that is GPLed, you can't relicense it > > under a different license. How could you then use `a license > > that prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort > > of nonsense they've been pulling' if the GPL allows it? Seth David Schoen wrote: > Depends on how that's accomplished. If it's a license for the entire > distribution as a whole, it should be possible. That's what I was > assuming: a EULA for the distribution. > > If it's a matter of relicensing GPLed code to forbid the use of EULAs, > at all, then no, it's presumably not allowed. :-) You misunderstand what I meant. Even if your `EULA for the distribution' said corporations weren't allowed to download it, nothing could prevent a company from obtaining the GPL components of the distribution from a third party and then `pulling the sort of nonsense they've been pulling' (I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is legal; I don't know that it is. If it's called a `license', it's different that saying you can have this GPL code for $10000) Peter
