----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:18 PM Subject: Re: GNU License, Again
> mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique- > > functionality component, however I do NOT distribute it (the GPL > > program, not the non-GPL one) in a non-GPL way and only distribute > > the NON-GPL components of the program (ie. the ORIGINAL) ones in the > > non-GPL way (since I own it I can do whatever the heck I please), > > then it is still OK, since I'm still not trying to take over or > > restrict the GPL program and the GPL program is still being > > distributed for free. > > That's not the letter of the GPL you are obeying, but some fuzzy > notion of yours. The problem here is contributory infringement: the > infringement is _planned_ and _prepared_ by you with the end-assembly > to be done in a mechanical way by the customer as your agent. > How is there the infringement when the GPL part is still distributed under the GPL? > It does not matter _where_ the customer will get his GPL source to do > this step. _If_ the customer manages to get a copy from the copyright > holder under a more permissive license, there actually will not even > be an infringement. > He would get the GPL source UNDER THE GPL. It's only the *NON- GPL* program that does not get distributed under the GPL. The non- GPL program requires the GPL program, but not the other way around. > Can you explain plausibly to the court that you could reasonably have > expected the customer to bargain for a copy of the GPLed software > under a different license? > He would not have to "bargain" for any copy of the GPL program. And it (the GPL program) would not have a different license -- the only thing that has a different license is the non-GPL program. > If you can, you are off the hook, and only your customer may be in a > mess (depending on just what he did with the combined code). > > > If this is still not permitted, why not? What would be the rationale > > for making the license that way? It does not seem to be to preserve > > the freeness of the GPLed code, since the above scenario would still > > keep it free, after all. > > The GPL is intended to guarantee the freedom of the code itself _and_ > descendants. > And the non-GPL code suddenly then becomes a "descendant" of the GPL code the instant it is made dependent on the GPL code in _any_ way, shape, or form? > -- > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
