> On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 06:38:23PM +0100, Andres Torrubia wrote: > > Im not a layer, but the GPL reads > (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html): > > > > 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent > > infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), > > conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or > > otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not > > excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot > distribute so > > as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any > > other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not > distribute > > the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit > > royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who > receive copies > > directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could > satisfy both > > it and this License would be to refrain entirely from > distribution of the > > Program. > > I'm aware of this paragraph of the GPL ... IMHO this does not fit > on a separate binary only modul or library from an other distributor > which is used by a GPL'ed software. There are many binary only moduls > and libraries out there which are used by GPL'ed software ... think about > system libraries of any comerical OS.
Using a module by invoking a documented, externally exposed interface is one thing (such as command-line), but using it in such a way that you _need_ to know how it internally works is different. Do you know of any GPL'd program that is distributed (and intertwined) WITH a binary for which you cannot get the sources under the same terms as the GPL? -Andres -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe linux-dvb" as subject.
