On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:00 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Jeu 11 octobre 2007 18:36, Les Mikesell a écrit : > > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > >> In a distribution context since yum or anaconda will always choose > >> to > >> install foo with GPLv3 samba you can't handwave "there was a GPLv2 > >> samba on the buildsys". That's not what users get through pour > >> distribution. And it's not mere aggregation since one links to the > >> other. > > > > But it's also not a derived work of the gplv3 instance, since that > > could > > be replaced by the gplv2 version and it would still work. > > With that kind of argument you could publish large harry potter > extracts in a children book anthology and never get sued. Because they > can be replaced with any other child story, right? No, you are comparing apples and oranges, a book is not a functional work, and software is a very special case in copyright, behaves somewhat differently from other works. > The distro is at some level a derived work of gplv3 samba because > you're distributing GPLv3 samba, so the specific licensing rules of > the samba version you distribute apply to some extent. Rubbish, if that were true the distribution would have to be GPLv3 in all of its components. A distribution is a mere aggregation of copyrighted works. > Anyway, IANAL, so I'll stop, but I doubt the case is as clear-cut as > you want it to be, especially in an i18n legal context. We don't have all the answers, but we can certainly exclude some exotic ones :) Simo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
