mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique- > functionality component, however I do NOT distribute it (the GPL > program, not the non-GPL one) in a non-GPL way and only distribute > the NON-GPL components of the program (ie. the ORIGINAL) ones in the > non-GPL way (since I own it I can do whatever the heck I please), > then it is still OK, since I'm still not trying to take over or > restrict the GPL program and the GPL program is still being > distributed for free.
That's not the letter of the GPL you are obeying, but some fuzzy notion of yours. The problem here is contributory infringement: the infringement is _planned_ and _prepared_ by you with the end-assembly to be done in a mechanical way by the customer as your agent. It does not matter _where_ the customer will get his GPL source to do this step. _If_ the customer manages to get a copy from the copyright holder under a more permissive license, there actually will not even be an infringement. Can you explain plausibly to the court that you could reasonably have expected the customer to bargain for a copy of the GPLed software under a different license? If you can, you are off the hook, and only your customer may be in a mess (depending on just what he did with the combined code). > If this is still not permitted, why not? What would be the rationale > for making the license that way? It does not seem to be to preserve > the freeness of the GPLed code, since the above scenario would still > keep it free, after all. The GPL is intended to guarantee the freedom of the code itself _and_ descendants. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss