On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:58:43PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:51:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Not really. But if it were a video library, rather than an mp3 > > decoding one, and it were the only one supported (but you could > > optionally build with no video output) then I'd say there was - > > despite the rather cheap attempt to duck the issue, it would be a > > clear derivative, and the first infringing action would be the > > creation of that derivative. > > Sure, that's the same as my last example, I think. It doesn't seem to > mean that the source is a derivative work of the library, though. > > Anyway, I think we're agreed as far as it usually matters in practice. The point was that "contributory infringement" isn't needed. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature