Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:24:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I hope that the FSF wouldn't want strengthen the idea that telling
> > people *how* to violate copyright should be illegal (eg. DeCSS,
> > "contributory infringement").
> 
> It's the act of writing the derivative software that was
> infringing. Not the same thing.

I work on a game which can use MAD, GPL, to decode MP3s.  The game itself is
MIT-licensed.  I could also, if I wanted, make it support OpenSSL.  I don't
think I would be in violation of the GPL (letter or spirit) as long as I
only distribute binaries that link against one or the other, and not both
at the same time.  I might add a warning to the output of configure, eg.
"distribution of this binary is in violation of the GPL because you have
enabled these modules in combination:" if both were enabled, though.

I believe doing all this would be in the spirit of the GPL, though
distributing an installer that built the binary for a user and saying
"use this to get around the GPL" certainly would not be.

Do you think there's a violation in here somewhere?  Where?

-- 
Glenn Maynard