Quoting Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This is tricky. The relevant section in the GPL is > > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which > is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must > be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other > licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every > part regardless of who wrote it. > > So, is the library part of the "whole"? If the company does not > distribute the BSD licensed library on the machine, then it is fairly > clear that the proprietary library is part of the whole. However, if > the BSD library is also included, then it becomes unclear. I could > see it going either way, depending on the judge and lawyers. > > This is what you call lawyerbait.
Thanks for your reply, just a clarification. The section of the GPL you posted above is from section 2 which covers distribution of modified GPL'ed works. In this case the GPL binary being distriuted is from unmodified source code, all the modifications are in the GPL incompatible library. The GPL apps dont need to be modified as the GPL incompatible library is a drop in replacment for the existing BSD license that the GPL app was built against. So i assume now that they are distributing the GPL app under clause 1, that they can distribute the unmodified GPL binary and GPL incompatible library together, and are only required to make source available for the GPL'ed application, not the GPL incompatible library. I hope i have it right this time... Glenn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
