RE: GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox +code
From: Stuart MacDonald
Date: Wed Nov 10 2004 - 15:11:28 EST
From: Alan Cox
> 1. "You must pay $1000 to distribute the source"
> 2. "I will pay you $1000 if you do not distribute the source"
> 3. "If you distribute the source then I won't supply you updates"
To restate #1 in equivalent words:
1. "If you distribute the source, you must pay $1000."
How is that different from
1. "If you distribute the source, you lose a contractual right you
have paid for."
? Both are of the form:
> #1 places conditions on a GPL provided contract right which the GPL
Since my 1.s are equivalent to yours, thus #1 applys equally to mine,
one of which is the hypothetical (see my previous post) situation
under discussion of sveasoft revoking support contracts.
So I've reached a logical inconsistency in your argument. One of two
things must be true: a) you are wrong, or b) my assertion that my 1.s
are equivalent to yours are wrong.
I'm willing to believe I've made a mistake. Please show me where.
Note that your 3. is not equivalent to the hypothetical situation
under discussion because "I won't supply you updates" is not
equivalent to sveasoft's action of "We revoke your support/updates
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/