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

Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use

John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:

> No, but you used language that only occurs in such cases (actually no, it
> also occurs in most conspiracy theories, but the GPL is used IN quite a
> few conspiracy theories) ((note: it's a plausible parallel: for what is
> enterprise corruption but a conspiracy theory that's proven right?))

Questions about what sort of language I used are not on topic for this
mailing list.  Please take the discussion elsewhere.

> No.  Just no.  Violations of civil law aren't PROHIBITED.

Questions about the moral or prohibitionary character of civil law
violations are not on topic for this mailing list.  Please take the
discussion elsewhere.

> Where does an objection change the legality of an issue?  I object to
> paying my taxes, but failing to pay them is illegal all the same.

This is actually sometimes on-topic, so I'll answer.  If the copyright
owner doesn't mind you doing X, then you can do it.  The copyright
owner's objection (or lack thereof) indeed has a great deal to do with
the matter.

Debian distributes lots of software (almost all of it) precisely
because the author's have officially said "we don't object".  An
informal statement to that effect is often as good, particularly near
the gray areas of copyright, though if a formal objection were to
appear, we might have to consider carefully.

realplayer.deb is such a case: near the boundary.  If the realplayer
people were to object, we might well decide that the appropriate
course is to remove the package.  But in fact, they don't object.
(And, if you think about their motives for requiring people to get the
sw direct from their web site, you'll see why they don't.)


Reply to: