Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård)]

Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:

>> > 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").
>
>> I have a CD that contains lots of GPL stuff, as well as OpenSSL (it's
>> a Slackware CD).  I downloaded it as an iso file from some ftp
>> server.  Apparently, an iso9660 format filesystem containing tar files
>> of GPL and GPL incompatible software is allowed.  Where is the
>> fundamental difference if the format of the wrapper is changed from
>> iso9660 to tar, and the internal files are shared objects instead of
>> tar files?
>
> The intent of the distributor in how the individual program bits should
> be used together, and the feasibility of using them separately.  (I.e.:
> there is *no* fundamental difference between iso9660 and tar for these
> purposes.)

So what prevents two independent plugins, each usable on it's own,
from being distributed together?  That the user could possibly load
both at the same time, creating a "derived work"?  This derived work
would only exist in the computers memory during the execution of the
program, and would almost certainly not be distributed.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se