Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:16:14 -0400 | Subject | Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model] | From | Andrew Pimlott <> |
| |
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 03:30:35PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > If the work would not have been restricted without it and is restricted > with it and you can't remove it, it's an additional restriction. If not, > what would an additional restriction be?
You can remove it. But if you remove for with the obvious purpose of abetting the distribution of non-GPL derived work, don't be surprised to get smacked by courts who don't care for your technical sophistry.
> > Its merely showing the intent of the author. > > The intent of the author has no bearing on whether or not a work is > derived.
I've noticed it's become common to say this, but (NAL) I doubt it's true. I would expect a court to respect the author's intent within some narrow range that would otherwise be ambiguous. Intent and community standards play a large role in law. If enough people wear a path across private property, it can become an easement.
Andrew - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |