Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
This not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <email@example.com>
To: "none" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
> "none" <email@example.com> writes:
> > I have trouble seeing how the separate distribution of A and B and then
> > end-user combining them is infringement by either the distributor or the
> > end-user. Assuming that neither A nor B includes code from each other,
> > A is not a derivative work of B nor is B a derivative work of A and so
> > are not derivative works distributed under the GPL which would trigger
> > incompatibility issue for the distributor.
> It sounds like your goal is to subvert the GPL, in which case you are
> not our friend. If your goal is to try and figure out ways that bad
> people might subvert the GPL, so that the FSF can fix them, then you
> should bring such issues up in private with the FSF. Bringing them up
> in public, on a list where they will never reach the relevant people,
> serves only to help those people who want to subvert the GPL.
I think you are very wrong about this assumption. I am not trying to
"subvert" the GPL. I think it is a very interesting license model that is
suitable for many.
If you will, my query/analysis has important implications to Debian and to
any other packagers. I am simply raising the issue that distributing A and B
separately (whether that be a GPL or a non-GPL library or any other code),
and not as a derived work, does not necessarily make you an infringer. This
is important because there shouldn't be uncertainty about how things can be
packaged. One objective of this list I believe is to determine what code can
be packaged together. I am simply exploring the issue to attempt to clarify
it. How does a packager know what he/she is doing with GPL and non-GPL code
"subverts" the goal of the GPL or not?
> However, regardless of your motives, this discussion isn't appropriate
> for debian-legal.