This came up in a local LUG ML I participate in ( http://www.sgvlug.org ) recently:
Does the GPL as written (Vers. 2) allow a distributor of a modified software to impose a *use* restriction on users? At first, I thought, "No way!", but I see the other guy's point ... Section 0, says in part: """ Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of """ which means this license does NOT *grant* usage rights (it just assumes them), whereas the section I would expect to protect me on this, says: """ 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. """ Note "granted herein" -- does that mean that the use right actually *isn't* guaranteed, so that a separate agreement could constrain use? Does section 6 guarantee that the usage right is kept, or is it somehow guaranteed in law, or is there another section which addresses this (I've looked of course, but didn't see anything that seems to do it). It occured to me that in order to have a click-through EULA, this hypothetical software would have to have it in the code, and I have to have the full sources, so I should be able to remove the EULA from the source, recompile, and not have this "click through ceremony" happen. If I did that, would the software then be free-and-clear? Or could they make me click through it to, say, download the software in the first place? (And the EULA be viral too, so that I have agreed to force anyone else to do the same?). As for relevance to Debian, can one assume that the GPL absolutely guarantees DFSG free? (As I'm pretty sure the DFSG *does* guarantee me this right). Has this guy found a loophole, or are we both just clueless about the law? (entirely possible). Would really love to hear a more clue-ful opinion. :-D Thanks, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com "Some things are too important to be taken seriously"
