[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thursday 04 September 2008 10:03, Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 08:14:18PM +0100, Ross Bearman wrote: > > As far as I'm aware Firefox has a EULA among other large GPL'd > > projects, I've never seen it written anywhere that you cannot define > > other restrictions, beyond the GPL. It's true EULAs are usually used > > as an alternative to the GPL in proprietary software, however EULA is > > simply a generic term for any agreement the user makes. > > Section 10 of the GPL states: > > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the > rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may > not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of > rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate > litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) > alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, > selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion > of it. > > While this obviously doesn't preclude dual-licencing, it does preclude > "this is GPL but you can't share/modify it without our permission", for > example, and I'm fairly sure it would also preclude "this is GPL, but if > you use it we own all your data". > > As has been pointed out, though, they've already corrected their EULA, > so I suspect it was an oversight in the first place (slap on the same > licence as they use for everything, without actually reading it...). I cant actually think of anything that would suit a license like that tho. I would be very surprised if Spear and Jackson demanded all the fruit I'd pruned with their secateurs or Crayola said it owned all modern art. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html