Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 15:26 -0500, Brian Beattie wrote:
> I'd be willing to bet, that since bathing in creosote is extremely
> unhealthy, the courts might well find that that restriction was
> nonsense.  This being the case they might decide that taken as a whole
> the license was a fraud and grant the public the right to unrestricted
> use of the product in question.  Especially if the defendants lawyer was
> particularly good.

The misuse of copyright defence is _very_ limited, and it's not about
being reasonable or healthy.

If I charged money for my licence _and_ made the creosote requirement,
perhaps the court would be able to find a legal loophole which hasn't
yet been mentioned.

The court is much less likely to attempt this if the creosote is the
_only_ thing I'm asking for, and if that's the whole raison d'etre of my
licence, and the only reason I'm letting you use my work in the first
place.

Otherwise where does it end? I tell you that you can use my software
'when Hell freezes over' and since that's also unreasonable you get to
use it without restriction? :)

-- 
dwmw2