Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source

[David Johnson]

On Wednesday 27 June 2001 05:01 pm, Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:

> I'm genuinely curious how you would respond to someone who made these
> arguments against any one of the open source licenses since they too don't
> require a signature or for someone to give a verbal "OK".  What if someone
> said "Just because the GPL says I'm under an agreement does not make it
> so."

I would say that they're absolutely correct! The GPL even backs me up on this 
one. If you don't agree with the license, then you don't have to abide by it, 
BUT you still have to abide by copyright law.

To quote from the GPL, which is one of very few licenses that makes this 
point clear: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not 
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or 
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited 
by law if you do not accept this License."

Now if you violate the GPL, get sued, and get hauled before a judge, you get 
to explain that you didn't violate the GPL but *did* violate copyright law.

For licenses that only add to the users rights on top of copyright, this 
isn't a problem. But for licenses that take away rights already given by 
copyright, then they need to be sure that they dot their i's and cross their 
t's.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org