Peter S Galbraith writes: > 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 sorry for the misunderstanding; that's absolutely correct. I was thinking that you were talking about a different issue. > (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) Obviously _some_ EULAs on top of compilations containing GPLed software are legal. Presumably not all of them are. -- Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
