On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:24:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > I hope that the FSF wouldn't want strengthen the idea that telling > > people *how* to violate copyright should be illegal (eg. DeCSS, > > "contributory infringement"). > > It's the act of writing the derivative software that was > infringing. Not the same thing.
I work on a game which can use MAD, GPL, to decode MP3s. The game itself is MIT-licensed. I could also, if I wanted, make it support OpenSSL. I don't think I would be in violation of the GPL (letter or spirit) as long as I only distribute binaries that link against one or the other, and not both at the same time. I might add a warning to the output of configure, eg. "distribution of this binary is in violation of the GPL because you have enabled these modules in combination:" if both were enabled, though. I believe doing all this would be in the spirit of the GPL, though distributing an installer that built the binary for a user and saying "use this to get around the GPL" certainly would not be. Do you think there's a violation in here somewhere? Where? -- Glenn Maynard
