GPL tested in Court 5095

I've actually discussed the GPL with an intellectual property attorney, and his opinion was very enlightening. He read it as a very routine license using very well tested principles of copyright law. If the GPL is invalid, then every single software license issued by Microsoft probably is as well. It's strength is apparent in the fact that pretty much everyone accused of violating the GPL has backed down and settled out of court rather. I buttume they did this after consultation with their attorneys. Not even SCO is trying to challenge the validity of the GPL. We might never get that 'test' case you want. I'm not exactly scared off by that.

Really, the GPL is just a license that grants you the right to copy code as long as a few limitations are followed. Lots of licenses do that, even commercial ones. It would be invalid if it tried to restrict your rights more narrowly than those granted under copyright law. It does not. If you decide you don't like the terms of the GPL, than standard copyright law applies. This is why those who violate the GPL never try to defend themselves by claiming the GPL is invalid, because that cannot get them off the hook for copyright violation.

Of course I am not a lawyer (though I talk to them often enough) so none of this should be mistaken for legal advice. You want real advice, hire your own shyster... I'll stick to writing code.

Cheers,

Thad