Alan Cox wrote:
But none of those start with the ability of anyone to obtain their
licensed copy freely, so there is no equivalence. You'd have to start
I've yet to see anywhere the law distinguishes "obtaining freely" from
paying in terms of copyright licences.
The relevant point is that everyone who has the GPL'd library and is
thus a potential user of the additional code which makes use of it _has_
the license since it applies to all copies. The concept of a 'stolen'
copy of a GPL covered library doesn't even make sense.
with the premise that everyone who could possible be the target of the
claimed derived work's infringing copy already has their own licensed
copy of the original.
Not everyone neccessarily has a licensed copy of a GPL work. They may not
have received one, they may have chosen not to accept the licence,
The license specifically states that you don't have to accept it to
receive the rights it confers.
they
may have breached the licence and lost the right to use it.
The license specifically states that it does not cover use.
They may even
be in a situation where national law of a country prohibits them
receiving a copy (eg US to Syria) and national law overrides licence and
contract in almost all cases.
OK, then they aren't a potential user of the other code and wouldn't be
involved.
It would be more like providing a custom case for your own copy of a record than a
compilation that includes the same content.
Thats a whole seperate can of worms, including trademark law, moral
rights and isn't simple of itself 8(
Agreed, but the simple case is where someone does not copy or
redistribute any of the original work but distributes separate code that
uses the functions of a GPL'd library - and perhaps other 3rd party
libraries as well.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
