[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> Then you are not copying or distributing foo and so its license >> does not impinge upon you. > > Well, doesn't this just seem like a total legal loophole in the GPL? > What if i don't even ask the user to press a button, what if i just, > upon install, as part of the install, just download and install the > "foo" in the background? From the user's perspective, it *seems* > built in, and from my perspective, it's just a technical difference, > either "foo" comes with the initial download or it comes when the > user first invokes it's function (which triggers the > download-install of "foo")? Is invoking a download and auto-install > technically the same as "distributing"? and if not, it's a rather > gaping hole in the whole licensing scheme. basically as long as > "foo" can be invoked via command line or is otherwise scriptable, > you can totally blow off the GPL and treat it like LGPL??
You'll find that judges are no mechanical idiots. If you plant a bomb in someone's house, the person triggering it by falling over the tripwire will not be the one convicted of murder. If you drop a rock on someone's head, gravity is not going to be incarcerated for not letting it float. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
