Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html > > So you pollute debian-legal too...
Sort of. Oh, and I'd like to share my latest posting. To: Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Distriution of GPL incompatible libraries Cc: "Glenn L. McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-legal@lists.debian.org In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 2/12/06, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > However, what if the customer then wanted to sell the machine, or if > > the company wanted to sell machines with this incompatible binary and > > library preinstalled. Would this violation the GPL, or is it possible > > that the companies modifcations are "hiding" behind the BSD license > > library ? > > This would violate the GPL. The violation occurs once you want to > distribute a GPLed binary linked to a GPL-incompatible library. Only in the GNU Republic where software belongs to state (and hence it is regulated by state permits akin to lottery or gun dealership which are neither contracts nor property rights), and both 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117 are simply nonexistent. Then comes the doctrine of copyright misuse... GPL violation of which has raised to the level of antitrust violation according to Wallace... and according to Prof. Nadan it doesn't even have to raise to the level of antitrust violation because linking claims alone are sufficient to put the entire GPL'd code base into quasi public domain (the penalty for copyright misuse). So pick your choice, GNUtians. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss