Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:51:03PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > Hypothetical: I build something under a proprietary license, and then
> > use the dl*() calls to access a GPLed library (let's use Readline for
> > example). Even though my software doesn't strictly-speaking contain
> > Readline, it doesn't function without it being present. I'm clearly
> > going beyond "mere aggregation" or using a fork-exec.
Either the program uses readline or it doesn't. If it does use readline,
and it's distributed with readline, then, strictly-speaking, it contains
readline.
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:28:29PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I don't agree with you here. The GPL doesn't say that. This is one of
> those cases where you're deliberately trying to work around the GPL and in
> this case it is my (non-professional layman's) opinion that you would have
> succeeded. Of course you do that and we'll have to lynch you or
> something because we're at times a militant lot and you'd be doing
> something the GPL's spirit condemns, even if its letter permits..
>
> There is a BSDish readline clode whose interface matches readline's.. If
> you wrote your dl*() access of libreadline using that non-GPL'd interface
> definition, you would have succeeded in circumventing the GPL.
Here, the biggest issue is: what's being distributed?
If the program is being distributed with the BSDish readline, and not the
GPLed readline, then there's no issue. But if the program is distributed
with the GPLed readline, and not the BSDish readline, then it's pretty
obvious that there's an issue. If the program is being distributed with
both, then it comes down to which the program is configured to use.
--
Raul
Reply to: