Re: Corel's apt frontend
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:59:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
Okay, you sell the other CD with it. Still doesn't matter.
> > 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.
>
> 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.]
I don't understand you're emphasize on distributing them together. So
far, we don't know that the CD won't contain dpkg and the first step
of installation is to download it from the net. Why would that be - why
should it be - any different?
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Reply to: