2011/4/10 Oleg Goldshmidt <[email protected]> > > Another point that I mentioned in an earlier post but not sure if it > registered. Consider the following hypothetical case. > > Vendor A (fits this case, huh) provides a library to Business B for > evaluation, under GPL. Business B actually needs the library to work with > their proprietary code and with code from Consultant C. Therefore, > Consultant C's verdict is essential for evaluation. > > I actually did register that remark, and wondered why my original workaround for this doesn't apply. Let me take this to the extreme:
Suppose that Business B wants Consultant C's opinion with Vendor A's GPLed library but without showing Mr. C any of Business B's sources. And it all has to be statically linked. Easy: Compile all Business B's sources into object files (.o, you know) but don't link. Send Mr. C the objects and sources Vendor A supplied. Tell Mr. C to compile and link the whole package (scripts, LiveDVDs whatever is needed to make this painless). Now Consultant C has a legal binary. But even this scenario isn't a threat, if the target market is microwave ovens one talks to. Unless someone puts a C compiler + linker on the oven's processor, to compile the code on its first use... Corollary question: Given this situation, why should the binary distribution be disallowed to anyone having compilation / linking abilities? It's a bit like asking if I'm allowed to run a cracked version of software for which I have bought a license.
_______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
