Hmm... I would not uncritically accept the principle that no matter what a licensor says in her license, a licensee must follow the restriction because of an assumption that it is legally enforceable. The rub -- no doubt -- is that one must be careful not to ignore the terms of a license at the same time as one is aware of the tension created between this default rule and the subjectivity involved in choosing not to follow terms that seem unworkable. For example, most end-users, who never bothered to read their software license in the first place, were said to routinely violate proprietary license terms in the early 1990's that prohibited making a second copy of the program disk of a software application (for backup, archive, or any other purpose). I never read that anyone of those end-users, including myself, became defendants in a legal dispute brought by the licensor. Hence, my point that some aspect of our discussion is purely academic.
Rod --------- Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.cyberspaces.org ...... Original Message ....... On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:32:52 -0400 "No Spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It's not entirely academic what do you with your legal copy of a program in the darkness of your room... :-) after all, what if "you" were legal corporation or entity, using it for your "private" use and making money from it? > >The GPL doesn't care. > >The QPL, reflecting Trolltech's concerns, does. Look at 4c and especially 6c. Obviously they are concerned about companies getting a legal albeit free copy, making changes and/or incorporating into their own proprietary products and neither releasing the code nor paying them, essentially defeating their revenue model. > >Cheers, >Glen Low, Pixelglow Software >www.pixelglow.com > > >-- >license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
