Re: [POSITION SUMMARY] Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård)]

bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:

> Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> writes:
>
>> I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
>> INVERT license.
>>
>> Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
>> mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
>> INVERT and STENOG, and then distribute that script, there might be a
>> problem. But that's an issue for another thread.
>>
>> This is no different from perl/python/whatever modules under different
>> licenses.
>
> I think this is a quite reasonable summary of the situation.  I will
> point out that further distributors who wish to distribute AIE and
> INVERT will essentially be bound by the GPL with regards to AIE, even
> though it is under the MIT/X11 license: they received it under the
> terms of the GPL, not under the terms of the X11 license.

*If* the program is derived from the plugin, which it isn't, since the
program existed first.  Besides the GPL says this:

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.

BTW, what's up with gnu.org?

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se