On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:13:08AM +0000, John Moser wrote: [...]
> In effect, there is no legal standing for the dynamic linking clause in the > GPL, AGPL, or similar. If there was, then distributions could be held > responsible for supplying i.e. MongoDB with libagssl (a theoretical, > functional AGPL LibSSL re-implementation) and then allowing their users to > install libopenssl instead--now violating the terms of the AGPL. If we try Your logic seems to be based on assuming that dynamic linking is either legal or illegal in all cases. I don't think this is true, and thus your quite elaborate constructions falls down. The law is capable of looking "through" constructions such as this, to see what is actually happening. "What Colour are your bits?" explains this concept well, if you've not already read it: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 I don't think it's productive for us to go armchair lawyering on this list, so I'll stop now. All I wanted to say was "it's not so simple" and I've done that now. Robie
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam