Re: Corel's apt frontend
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:59:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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.]
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:10:33AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I must say this thread is VERY disturbing. Have you people considered
> what you're talking about? How is a non-GPL shell or environment
> spawning a GPL app different than a GPL shell spawning a non-GPL app?
> Either way it's the same sort of run-time connection, using the same
> interface. If one is not allowed, the other is not allowed either.
Sure, calling the program isn't the GPL violation.
The GPL violation requires that you've put together a derivative work,
and that you're distributing it, that you're using GPLed code in the work,
and you're using code that violates the GPL's terms in the work.
[Also, note that the linux kernel is something of a special case because
Linus has consistently granted permission for commercial works to be
built on it, and libc is lgpled.]
> If that is the case the GPL contaminates other software (like the
> Debian distribution as a whole) by requiring that EVERY SINGLE THING
> we distribute be GPL. A specific example of something that the GPL
> would be trying to contaminate would be Apache.
If people are distributing derivative works that include GPLed code and
apache, sure. But if apache is just calling /bin/sh, there's nothing
special about that -- any /bin/sh can be used.
> Fortunately, the GPL does not do this. I think it's approaching
> dellusional to believe otherwise, nothing in the GPL itself indicates
> that simply running a program or having another program run it should
> be considered a combined work. ANd in fact the GPL is careful to say
> that mere aggregation of GPL packages is perfectly acceptable if we
> follow the other restrictions in the GPL.
Sure, and that has nothing to do with the Corel front end. The Corel
front end for dpkg is obviously intended to enhance dpkg.
--
Raul
Reply to: