On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Henrik Nordström <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since the components of a Linux distribution coexists by aggregation and > not linking the GPL do not extend across the component boundaries. > Any such aggregate distribution might be considered a non-Free > distribution if you like, but is not automatically a GPL violation. ... no i believe you're right - i spoke to dr stallman: the fsf's view, as i understand it, is that yes it's not a GPL violation, but they don't ethically like it, and as long as the removal requirements are easy to comply with they don't make a fuss. from a practical perspective for canonical for example it does mean that nobody for example in the debian community (who runs mirrors for example) is in the slightest bit interested in helping them out, precisely because the distribution has become non-free. i wish i were more able to separate out my dislike for these practices from the actual legal / license compliance issues! l.
