On Jun 3, 2016 04:57, "Steven D'Aprano" <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > (1) If the GPL licence is valid, then they are in breach of the licence > terms, the licence is revoked, and they are not legally permitted to > distribute or use the software; > > (2) If, as some people insist, the GPL licence is not valid, then they have > no valid licence, and are not legally permitted to distribute or use the > software. > > That's why, for all the talk about the GPL never being held up in court, > *nobody* has ever challenged it in court. If they did, and failed, then > they would be in breach of copyright. If they succeeded, they would still > be in breach of copyright. Any user of GPLed software who challenged it > would be shooting themselves in the head: *either way*, win or lose, they > would be in breach of copyright law.
I'm not sure this is completely right. The GPL explicitly says one doesn't have to agree to the GPL to use the software. The GPL only comes into affect when distribution is involved. So challenging the legitimacy of the GPL in court (which certainly has happened in Germany) wouldn't prevent one from using the GPL software. Only from distributing it. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
