Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?
I wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > In other words, if I write a GPL'd function find_outer_otter, and you
> > call it from your own function locate_inner_otter, in you program
> > frob-otters, then:
> > 2) If locate_inner_otter is not derived from find_outer_otter, but
> > you distribute binaries for frob-otters, then you must still give
> > the complete source code for both locate_inner_otter and
> > find_outer_otter. The reason is that the GPL lets you copy
> > find_outer_otter only if you distribute the "the whole on the
> > terms of this License."
>
> If locate_inner_otter isn't derived from find_outer_otter, how can it
> be considered part of "the modified work as a whole" which the
> requirements apply to? Doesn't "modified work as a whole" mean
> "(something derived from find_outer_otter) as a whole"?
>
> > 3) If you attempt to defeat (2) by distributing the two functions
> > separately, or distributing only locate_inner_otter, and telling
> > users how to combine them to produce frob-otters, and there is no
> > way to make locate_inner_otter useful without doing so, then a
> > court will find that you were attempting a subterfuge, and that
> > what you were doing was the same thing as (2) for all practical
> > purposes.
> I assume this isn't the case _if_ I'm correct regarding (2).
Oops, I only thought of this after reading SScott's mail. Even if I'm
incorrect regarding the meaning of "modified work as a whole", how could
one possibly violate the GPL if, as above, the GPLed work is not
distributed. After all, the GPL purports to only restrict modifying and
distributing that which is licensed under it:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
So if, as in case 3, I'm not copying, distributing, or modifying
find_outer_otter or a derivative of find_outer_otter, how could I
possibly be in violation of the GPL?
--
Brian Kimball
Reply to: