Le dim 26/01/2003 à 21:02, Steve Langasek a écrit : > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 08:03:26PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le dim 26/01/2003 à 18:51, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > > > > This is not legal, at least when there the software includes some GPL > > > > code. > > > > Please provide a reference to the section of the GPL that would make > > > this illegal. To the best of my knowledge, and from this brief > > > description of what they're doing, this IS legal as long as they don't > > > distribute binaries. > > > Section 2b requires derived works "to be licensed as a whole at no > > charge to all third parties under the terms of [the GPL]". Which is > > clearly not the case for mplayer as it includes GPL-incompatible code. > > The question is whether mplayer as a whole is necessarily considered a > derived work of the GPL code if they aren't distributing binaries. In > source form, it's possible they would be legally regarded as separate > works that are distributed together. I think the GPL is pretty clear about that : « But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. » Thus, distributing a full mplayer tarball might not be legal while distributing it as several tarballs would be - especially if the different components are re-usable outside mplayer, which would fully comply with the previous statement : « If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. » -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature