[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
On Saturday 13 December 2003 07:03, David Woodhouse wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 15:26 -0500, Brian Beattie wrote:
>> I'd be willing to bet, that since bathing in creosote is extremely
>> unhealthy, the courts might well find that that restriction was
>> nonsense. This being the case they might decide that taken as a
>> whole the license was a fraud and grant the public the right to
>> unrestricted use of the product in question. Especially if the
>> defendants lawyer was particularly good.
>The misuse of copyright defence is _very_ limited, and it's not
> about being reasonable or healthy.
>If I charged money for my licence _and_ made the creosote
> requirement, perhaps the court would be able to find a legal
> loophole which hasn't yet been mentioned.
>The court is much less likely to attempt this if the creosote is the
>_only_ thing I'm asking for, and if that's the whole raison d'etre
> of my licence, and the only reason I'm letting you use my work in
> the first place.
>Otherwise where does it end? I tell you that you can use my software
>'when Hell freezes over' and since that's also unreasonable you get
> to use it without restriction? :)

Chuckle... Hell quite often freezes over, or up as they say.

Hell, Michigan that is. :-)

Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M
99.22% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.119 / U:2.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site