RE: GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox +code

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 19:30, David Schwartz wrote:

> > 	Look, this really is simple. When the GPL talks about "additional
> > restrictions", it doesn't mean the restrictions found in the
> > GPL. It means
> > restrictions found elsewhere, such as in private contracts. (Where else
> > would the restrictions be?!)

> It talks about additional restrictions imposed on your GPL granted
> rights.

	Precisely. And it says there cannot be any.

> It seems very simple to me. Future upgrade services are a
> seperate contractual matter.

	They are not separate since they are conditioned upon your failure to
exercise your GPL rights.

> Your whole position is positively
> ridiculous. Very large amounts of GPL code is released where you don't
> get updates, ever, whatever you do. Yet you don't object to those.

	I don't object to those because there is no additional restriction on the
exercise of your GPL rights. Conduct which is discretionary can become
objectionable if the reason is objectionable.

	I am saying that you cannot condition a decision to give someone code that
is covered by the GPL on their promise not to exercise their rights under
the GPL. You cannot impose a penalty upon someone for exercising their
rights under the GPL. All these things are additional restrictions.

	Please explain to me what you think the GPL prohibition against "additional
restrictions" means if not to prohibit the distribution of GPL works
conditioned on promises not to exercise your rights under the GPL (and
penalties for exercising them).

	DS