Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Think of the following GPL.c (GPL'd computer program work in source code form) NonGPL.c (NonGPL'd computer program work in source code form) aggregated into one file (tarball, ISO image, or whatnot)
GPL.c is being copied and distributed as a verbatim copy. Nothing further is required.
GPL.o (GPL'd computer program work in object code form) NonGPL.o (NonGPL'd computer program work in object code form) aggregated into one file (tarball, ISO image, or whatnot)
The source code for the GPLed portion must be made properly available. NonGPL.o is irrelevant, because it is combined in a "mere aggregation". (A rights holder might choose to argue otherwise, though.)
GPL.o (GPL'd computer program work in object code form) NonGPL.o (NonGPL'd computer program work in object code form) aggregated into one file executable.
The source code for both GPL.o and NonGPL.o must be made properly available under the GPL, because the two are now part of a combined work, and permission to do this is given only if the work as a whole is distributed under the GPL. What's your point? Do you believe that a judge would have any trouble understanding these distinctions? Judges aren't generally stupid, and sophistry doesn't get claimants very far. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
