On 05/29/2014 09:18 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:47:31AM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
>> IANAL, but if the added GPL3 code is, as Richard said, an "isolated utility"
>> that is not linked to any of the GPL2+ code (an assumption about the nature of
>> an "isolated utility"), then isn't this "mere aggregation"?
>
> I didn't say anything about an isolated utility, but now I see that
> Tim did. So my original assumption was that there was something more
> than 'mere' aggregation, but if that's not true then the answer and
> analysis are different (and easier). Or rather the end result is
> objectively the same, but the way you look at it might be different.
I concur. If the new code is an isolated utility, then that specific
binary would clearly be GPLv3, while the rest of the codebase would
remain GPLv2+. In my non-lawyery, non-legal advisey, opinion, of course.
~tom
==
¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> OSAS @ Red Hat
University Outreach || Fedora Special Projects || Fedora Legal
null
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
