From: "Les Mikesell" <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 09:50 -0400, Sean wrote:> They claim that distributing a program that uses a gpl'd library > is a copyright violation even if it does not include the library > in the distribution. There is no other way to describe that > besides stopping the distribution of another person's original> work.No, that is a legal determination. It would seem that legally the "original work" of which you speak is actually a derived work. But I don't know the specifics.It is the FSF's interpretation that anything that needs a GPL'd library to function is a derived work of that library even when distributed separately . I'm sure that with sufficient funds you could find well-trained lawyers to argue either side of that case, but it sounds like insanity to me that you can violate a copyright without copying the material in question. Or that whether a violation exists or not depends on whether or not a functionally equivalent library exists under a different license, something that none of the parties involved might not know and that could change without their involvement or knowledge.
Along those lines a funny thought just crossed my overly fertile
mind. Suppose GPL adds a very restrictive DRM clause. Then suppose
Coca Cola uses GPL code for some of their process control. That
COULD mean, modulo who pays for the most expensive lawyers, that
Coca Cola would have to make their highly "DRMed" trade secret
formula open source. The thought of that fit hitting the shan
has me momentarily quite bemused.
{^_-}
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
