It is the fact that the two actions are connected that makes it a breach. There are very many actions that are legal in isolation, but not when one is carried out as a consequence of another. The most common instances are of course in anti-discrimination law.
As an expert witness, I would have no trouble connecting them for a judge and showing how they were tantamount to an added term under section 6. On Sat, Jul 1, 2017, 13:49 Alessandro Selli <alessandrose...@linux.com> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 16:50:28 -0700 > Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult < > > enrico.weig...@gr13.net> wrote: > > > >> > >> By selling, I mean, you'll first have to pay before you get the code. > >> But anybody republish it at will (as long as complying to GPL), so > >> how can that business model work ? > > > > > > It doesn't, unless you have understanding customers who just don't > > redistribute because they want you to stay in business. But grsecurity > > doesn't work that way, it is alleged. It is alleged that they tell > > customers that if they redistribute, they will no longer be allowed to > be a > > customer or get the next version. > > > > IMO that's violating the GPL. > > I don't remember reading anywhere in the GPL a clause forcing someone to > entertain a commercial relationship with someone they'd rather not. It is > stated you are free to sell or give away GPL'ed code, but it does not say > you > must sell it to anyone who asks you to do so. I know of no licence that > contains such a clause. > > > Alessandro > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng >
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
