On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I've never heard of a major software company hauling someone to court over a non-commercial/educational use license, and while it's probably happened I doubt it's a frequent occurrence.
Probably doesn't fit your "major software company" definition, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg
In addition to a case like that (which involved redistribution), I'm sure lots of large companies have gotten fined for noncommercial-only software found during a software license compliance audit.
Which doesn't really answer the question, but:
*If you're editing Wikipedia from work for non-work reasons, you're probably breaking company policy as well as tax laws anyway. *If you're editing Wikipedia from home, the issue is highly unlikely to reach a court anyway.
Yes, But What I see is this, in my paranoid mind:
Company M prohibits X. Company M gives students Z software Y to do something prohibited. Student Z contributes software using software Y to project P. Company M wants to now charge royalties for project P for violations, because it knows that the work was infringing on some rights.
Basically I am worred about these student versions of windows "infecting" open source projects with illegal contributions.
Just a crazy idea that has been following me.
mike