On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:28:39AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > If I sold a cdrom which played music, and the music it played was a few > > bars of my own and some hit single I picked up from a music store, I'd > > have to have a legal right to sell that hit single.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:59:37AM -0500, David Starner wrote: > A better analogy might be if that cdrom automatically went over to > the next CD and played a track from it mid-song. Could the copyright > holders of the next CD have any control over you selling a CD that > does that? As I understand it, Corel would be distributing their front end with dpkg -- this conflicts with the distinction you're trying to raise. > As someone pointed out, this would prohibit you from running perl from > bash, or running bash from a non-GPL x-terminal or any GPL program on > a proprietary X server. Those would be the same sort of aggretion as > get_it calling dpkg. Well, first off, there's no license conflict between perl and bash. However, I can see how you might get into trouble if you wrote a proprietary program which depended on both perl and bash to run, and you tried to distribute the result. But the xterminal example is a bit more constrained. Here, you could still run into trouble -- but only if you were distributing both the proprietary x software and the GPLed software as composite parts of some larger work. [And, the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL restricts the sorts of larger works which can get into trouble this way.] -- Raul
