Alan Cox wrote:
The license specifically states that you don't have to accept it to
receive the rights it confers.
I would read that paragraph again if I was you
"However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License"
I was describing the case where someone distributes additional different
code that links to an unmodified GPL'd library - and perhaps to other
libraries as well. That might be in the form of source that links at
compile time (as in the RIPEM case) or something that uses dynamic
libraries. The person distributing the additional code has no need to
modify or distribute anything covered by the GPL. The only possible
claim against the additional code is that it is a derived work, which
depends on knowing that no equivalent library exists under other terms.
And as far as I know, no such theory has been tested in court.
There's also a more complicated issue where programs with dynamic
loading or plugin capabilities are linked in unpredictable ways
depending on circumstances. For example a perl script might load the
readline library if it is available and also a proprietary database
client library - with the choice of database type made by the user at
install time. If this makes a covered combined work, who would be
responsible for the violation? Multimedia players that load plugin
codecs on demand would raise a similar question.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
