Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court >> > could decide either way. > >> > The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot >> > together you are creating a derived work that violates at least once >> > of the licenses. Certainly you can concoct a case where this is >> > plausible (wrap them all up in one .deb with a default configuration >> > that uses both) - and it is not at all clear where to draw the >> > line. There are legitimate arguments in both directions (the >> > counter-argument is approximately "It's not derivation, it's >> > collation"). > >> I have a CD that contains lots of GPL stuff, as well as OpenSSL (it's >> a Slackware CD). I downloaded it as an iso file from some ftp >> server. Apparently, an iso9660 format filesystem containing tar files >> of GPL and GPL incompatible software is allowed. Where is the >> fundamental difference if the format of the wrapper is changed from >> iso9660 to tar, and the internal files are shared objects instead of >> tar files? > > The intent of the distributor in how the individual program bits should > be used together, and the feasibility of using them separately. (I.e.: > there is *no* fundamental difference between iso9660 and tar for these > purposes.)
So what prevents two independent plugins, each usable on it's own, from being distributed together? That the user could possibly load both at the same time, creating a "derived work"? This derived work would only exist in the computers memory during the execution of the program, and would almost certainly not be distributed. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]