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

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

> On Llu, 2004-11-08 at 01:14, David Schwartz wrote:
> > 	For those not familiar, sveasoft revokes your license to
> > receive further
> > updates if you exercise your distribution rights under the GPL. I would
> > argue that conditioning the sale of a GPL'd work on a failure
> > to exercise
> > your rights under the GPL is a "further restriction".

> I don't see the problem. If I ship you GPL code then you have no "right"
> to updates from me.

	Correct, but you do have the right to distribute the GPL'd code that you
received.

> You are arguing about a right that never existed and
> for good reason. Do you think that if Linus personally emails you a
> snapshot you somehow acquire the right to demand newer updates from him
> ? or how about "I bought Red Hat 1.1 so you must send me 9.0". Both
> strike me as a little ridiculous and certainly not GPL granted rights.

	That is not what I'm arguing. I think I made my argument perfectly clear.

> As a GPL code provider their duties to you are to the source to the GPL
> code they gave you binaries for (or other variant options in the
> license). They end there. I don't have to give your friend a copy, I
> don't have to give you updates.

	That's right. But if the government could penalize people for their free
speech after the fact, then they would effectively have no right to free
speech.

	Can I say, "I'll ship you a copy to my privately-made derivative of the
Linux kernel, but only if you first sign a contract promising not to
distribute it".

	What about, "I'll ship you a copy of my privately-made derivative of the
Linux kernel, but only if you promise in advance to pay me $25,000 if you
ever ask for the source code to it ".

	The GPL says that you can impose no further restrictions upon the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by the GPL. Requiring people to agree to further
restrictions is imposing further restrictions.

	If you can impose penalties upon people for exercising their rights under
the GPL, then you've imposed further restrictions. "If you do X, you can't
have Y, but otherwise you can", is a restriction on your right to do X.

	DS