This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc. etc.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:34 PM Subject: Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use > Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Linking is not necessarily copyright violation, but if combined with > > > certain other acts, the whole thing, including all its parts, are an > > > instance of illegal copying. The total combination would indeed have > > > to be an act of copying, but it's quite irrelevant whether each and > > > every piece is. > > > > Unless you come up with a relevant example, this is going to look more > > like tedious niggling than a useful contribution to any discussion. > > We have a case here of a work composed of two parts: > > A) a gpl'd library > B) a main program with a gpl-incompatible license > > The combined act of distributing A and B, with the intention to > combine them into A+B is the combined case. > > Distributing A alone is not illegal. Distributing B alone is not > illegal. > > Distributing A+B is illegal. And it's illegal no matter how many > people divide up the work, as long as what they are doing is intending > to distribute A+B. You have to look at the *total situation* and not > just ask "is linking a copyright violation"? > > The case we were talking about *is* a relevant example. > I have trouble seeing how the separate distribution of A and B and then the end-user combining them is infringement by either the distributor or the end-user. Assuming that neither A nor B includes code from each other, then A is not a derivative work of B nor is B a derivative work of A and so they are not derivative works distributed under the GPL which would trigger the incompatibility issue for the distributor. The end-user has broad licenses under the GPL ("2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program") and likely also under the GPL-incompatible license to make a derivative work so the end-user does not infringe because he/she has permission. So, no direct infringement possible by the distributor (because there is no derivative work created), no contributory/vicarious infringement by the distributor (because you need direct infringement to trigger those kinds of liability), and no infringement by the end-user (because he/she is licensed). I agree it "looks" rotten but ..... Just some thoughts. > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
