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

Re: Corel's apt frontend

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?

On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:59:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > As I understand it, Corel would be distributing their front end with
> > dpkg -- this conflicts with the distinction you're trying to raise.

On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:32:45AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> Okay, you sell the other CD with it. Still doesn't matter.

Sure, because you're intending that they both be copied onto the
same system.  That's not the same as independent cds.

> > > 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? 

Distributing them together is just part of the picture.  To understand why
it's a part of the picture you'd have to have read the GPL.

Rather than try to explain the GPL, yet again, I'll just suggest you read
it and pay attention what it's allowing you to do.


Reply to: