[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Corel's apt frontend

On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:28:39AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If I sold a cdrom which played music, and the music it played was a few
> > bars of my own and some hit single I picked up from a music store, I'd
> > have to have a legal right to sell that hit single.  

On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:59:37AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> A better analogy might be if that cdrom automatically went over to
> the next CD and played a track from it mid-song. Could the copyright
> holders of the next CD have any control over you selling a CD that
> does that?

As I understand it, Corel would be distributing their front end with
dpkg -- this conflicts with the distinction you're trying to raise.

> As someone pointed out, this would prohibit you from running perl from
> bash, or running bash from a non-GPL x-terminal or any GPL program on
> a proprietary X server. Those would be the same sort of aggretion as
> get_it calling dpkg.

Well, first off, there's no license conflict between perl and bash.
However, I can see how you might get into trouble if you wrote a
proprietary program which depended on both perl and bash to run, and
you tried to distribute the result.

But the xterminal example is a bit more constrained.  Here, you could
still run into trouble -- but only if you were distributing both the
proprietary x software and the GPLed software as composite parts of some
larger work.  [And, the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL restricts
the sorts of larger works which can get into trouble this way.]


Reply to: