On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 05:02:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes: > > >> OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed > >> source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has > >> installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately, > >> right? When the user runs the program, it will load both plugins. > >> Would this in some magical way make the plugins derived works of each > >> other, thus violating the GPL? > > > > No. But a vendor could get into trouble if they shipped both. > > How's that? The GPL allows distribution together with non-GPL works, > as long as the non-GPL things are not derived from anything GPL'd. In > my opinion, placing two shared objects in the same tar file doesn't > make one a derived work of the other. Would it make a difference if > the offending (to rms) plugins were distributed separately? "Maybe". This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court could decide either way. The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot together you are creating a derived work that violates at least once of the licenses. Certainly you can concoct a case where this is plausible (wrap them all up in one .deb with a default configuration that uses both) - and it is not at all clear where to draw the line. There are legitimate arguments in both directions (the counter-argument is approximately "It's not derivation, it's collation"). For this sort of stuff, when there isn't a clear answer, you have basically two options: a) Ask a lawyer, and be willing to fight it in court if necessary b) Assume you can't do it and stay clear -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature