[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 02:38:55PM +0100, Ross Bearman wrote: >> I'm not sure what you're getting at? Google didn't modify the GPL, >> they release Chrome under the GPL and had a EULA that you had to agree >> to when installing; they're completely separate licenses. > > And adding extra restrictions on top of the GPL is explicitly disallowed > by the section I quoted. Either you dual-licence it (GPL or EULA, and > all of one applies OR all of the other applies) or it's invalid. Although Chrome code from Google is BSD licensed. As the link I posted shows the licensing of other components is fairly varied. So whilst I enjoyed the discussion on why GNU GPL distribute software can't have other restrictions applied, and I hope folks now understand how the GNU GPL protects their rights, it is kind of academic to the example given. It'd be amusing if Microsoft released "Microsoft Chrom+" tomorrow, same features but without the carpet bombing security flaw, or some other improvement, although it would probably take their lawyers longer to check if it was legal than to do the code. -- 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