On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:51:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > 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? > > Not really. But if it were a video library, rather than an mp3 > decoding one, and it were the only one supported (but you could > optionally build with no video output) then I'd say there was - > despite the rather cheap attempt to duck the issue, it would be a > clear derivative, and the first infringing action would be the > creation of that derivative.
Sure, that's the same as my last example, I think. It doesn't seem to mean that the source is a derivative work of the library, though. Anyway, I think we're agreed as far as it usually matters in practice. -- Glenn Maynard
