On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 22:45, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
> > source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
> > installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately,
> > right? When the user runs the program, it will load both plugins.
> > Would this in some magical way make the plugins derived works of each
> > other, thus violating the GPL?
>
> No. But a vendor could get into trouble if they shipped both.
Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
following, in chronological order:
1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin API.
I release my program under the MIT X11 license.
2. Weston Manning (a new maintiner) uploads Anthony's Foo Editor as
afe.
3. Marc Spencer creates a plugin, Frobit, under the OpenSSL license
4. Weston Manning uploads afe-frobit
5. Duncan Finch creates a plugin, Barnitz, under the GPL, version 2
6. Weston Manning uploads afe-barnitz
While performing this excercize, please keep in mind the following, from
Title 17 USC Sec. 101: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or
more preexisting works." Namely, I can NOT create a derivative work of a
work that does not yet exist.
Now, we know from the definition of a derivative work (above) that 1--4
can not be derivative works of 5 or 6. So, could someone please tell me,
where exactly is the GPL violation?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part