Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raul Miller" <moth@debian.org>
To: "none" <chloehoffman@hotmail.com>
Cc: <debian-legal@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
> [Unlike TB, I still think this is a relevant topic for debian-legal,
> though I'm begining to agree with him that Chloe hasn't been paying
> attention to the relevant concepts.]
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 10:18:04PM -0400, none wrote:
> > I have trouble seeing how the separate distribution of A and B and
> > then the end-user combining them is infringement by either the
> > distributor or the end-user.
>
> Of course, you understand that this creation of a derivative work
> is regulated by copyright law (17 USC §106).
Sure..although I am not sure what that adds - creating a derivative work is
perfectly valid if licensed
>
> > Assuming that neither A nor B includes code from each other, then A is
> > not a derivative work of B nor is B a derivative work of A and so they
> > are not derivative works distributed under the GPL which would trigger
> > the incompatibility issue for the distributor.
>
> "includes code" isn't a criteria defined in copyright law. Also,
> you don't put bits inside other bits, so this isn't a criteria
> relevant to the underlying machine.
>
> However, compiling the program is creating a derivative work. The
> same applies to linking.
>
> > The end-user has broad licenses under the GPL ("2. You may modify your
> > copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a
> > work based on the Program")
>
> <quote>
> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program ...
> provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ...
> </quote>
>
> I don't see that you've addressed any of those conditions, let alone all.
I am not sure why I need too. I am assuming they are all complied with. The
only condition of significance is
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License."
But note it applies only to a work that is distributed or published that
contains or is derived from the GPL code. If you recall the example, A and B
are separately distributed (not as a derivative work) and a derivative work
is created by the end-user but not further "distributed or published".
>
> > I agree it "looks" rotten but .....
> >
> > Just some thoughts.
>
> Please think a bit more.
>
Ad-hominem doesn't suit you.
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
Reply to: