Re: Monta Vista software license terms

[Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@cisco.com>]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 01:33:20PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> 	However, without the GPL, you already had the right to possess and 
> use the original work. Without the GPL, the distributor already had 
> the right to possess and use the original work and to create derived 
> works. There is no issue of distribution rights to the original work 
> because everyone involved started with the right to use and possess 
> the original work.

I don't know which legal system you're baing the above on (USA?),  but
from my understanding of UK law (CDPA 1988,  as ammended),  it's different.

The acts of redistributing a work [ 16 (1)(b) ],  or adapting a work
(i.e. derived work) [ 16 (1)(e)] are reserved,  and as such lacking
some form of licence would constitute infringement.

So given the above,  your argument would seem to fail wrt UK law.

Given that there are UK based authors for parts of the kernel,  it would
seem that they would have a basis in law to sue for infringement.

Mind having the funds to pursue court action is another thing entirely.

DF