Re: Corel's apt frontend

[bruce@perens.com (Bruce Perens)]

From: Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> I'll switch from talking about lib-apt to talking about dpkg, because
> that's the case at hand from my POV.  Corel are distributing dpkg -
> ie, they are making copies.  Making copies is something that copyright
> law says only the copyright holder may give permission for.

Note the GPL language on aggregation.

   In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
   with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
   a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
   the scope of this License.

If it's not a derivative work, they are aggregating dpkg.

Yes, it might be nice if copyright law considered _reference_ to be
a form of derivation, but it does not. A shell script is not a work
containing all of the programs it executes, nor is a client derivative
of its server. And we'd be on rather shaky ground where dynamic libraries
are concerned were it not for the headers.

I've pointed out before that CORBA can probably be used to circumvent the
GPL. When last I discussed that with RMS, he wasn't showing an interest in
closing that loophole.

	Thanks

	Bruce