This not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc etc.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:22 PM Subject: Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use > "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I have trouble seeing how the separate distribution of A and B and then the > > end-user combining them is infringement by either the distributor or the > > end-user. Assuming that neither A nor B includes code from each other, then > > A is not a derivative work of B nor is B a derivative work of A and so they > > are not derivative works distributed under the GPL which would trigger the > > incompatibility issue for the distributor. > > It sounds like your goal is to subvert the GPL, in which case you are > not our friend. If your goal is to try and figure out ways that bad > people might subvert the GPL, so that the FSF can fix them, then you > should bring such issues up in private with the FSF. Bringing them up > in public, on a list where they will never reach the relevant people, > serves only to help those people who want to subvert the GPL. > I think you are very wrong about this assumption. I am not trying to "subvert" the GPL. I think it is a very interesting license model that is suitable for many. If you will, my query/analysis has important implications to Debian and to any other packagers. I am simply raising the issue that distributing A and B separately (whether that be a GPL or a non-GPL library or any other code), and not as a derived work, does not necessarily make you an infringer. This is important because there shouldn't be uncertainty about how things can be packaged. One objective of this list I believe is to determine what code can be packaged together. I am simply exploring the issue to attempt to clarify it. How does a packager know what he/she is doing with GPL and non-GPL code "subverts" the goal of the GPL or not? > However, regardless of your motives, this discussion isn't appropriate > for debian-legal. > > Thomas > > >
