On 05/29/2014 09:18 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:47:31AM -0600, Eric Smith wrote: >> IANAL, but if the added GPL3 code is, as Richard said, an "isolated utility" >> that is not linked to any of the GPL2+ code (an assumption about the nature >> of >> an "isolated utility"), then isn't this "mere aggregation"? > > I didn't say anything about an isolated utility, but now I see that > Tim did. So my original assumption was that there was something more > than 'mere' aggregation, but if that's not true then the answer and > analysis are different (and easier). Or rather the end result is > objectively the same, but the way you look at it might be different.
I concur. If the new code is an isolated utility, then that specific binary would clearly be GPLv3, while the rest of the codebase would remain GPLv2+. In my non-lawyery, non-legal advisey, opinion, of course. ~tom == ¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> OSAS @ Red Hat University Outreach || Fedora Special Projects || Fedora Legal
<<attachment: tcallawa.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
