From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
> see how this can be a problem.
Because they have a right to copy dpkg onto their system regardless of whether
or not any other application uses it, and such copying is simple aggregation.
> Why make this postulate? ld wasn't invented to circumvent copyright,
> why must execve() have been invented for this purpose?
If, for example, someone put a command line interface on libapt explicitly for
the purpose of using it with a non-GPL application, that would be a device
for circumventing the copyright.
> Once again, there's nothing in the GPL about linkages, and there's nothing
> in copyright law about linkages.
That doesn't matter. Static linking copies. Dynamic linking copies at run
time, which is a rather shaky argument. Executables that run dynamic libraries
are derivative of the headers of those libraries, and they copy them. Exec()
doesn't copy.
> The problem here is that the front end relies on GPLed code to
> create its result, but uses a proprietary license. So to distribute
> the resulting program (which happens to not reside in a single file)
> Corel would need to fix the licensing conflict between these two
> pieces of the program.
I'm sorry. You have a right to run GPL code in a pipeline with proprietary
software or any other software. To violate copyright, you must copy.
Thanks
Bruce
