[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)



Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> schrieb/wrote:
> You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument
> here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken.

You are actually creating straw mans which are broken. The original
argument isn't.

The argument, simplified, basically goes like this:

1. Program A is licensed under the GPL. => Debian can distribute A.
   Library M is licensed under the GPL. => Debian can distribute M.
   Program B is a derivative of A, which dynamically links against M.
   => Debian can distribute B.

2. Library O is licensed under the a BSD-like license, which contains
   an advertisting clause. => Debian can still distribute O.
   Program C is a derivative of A, which dynamically links against O.
   => Debian can't distribute C.

3. Library M is fully compatible to O. So programs B and C are actually
   identical.
   => Debian can and can't distribute B/C at the same time.
   => This can't be right.

So one of the assumptions made above is wrong. The only assumption that
is not obviously right is: "Debian can't distribute C".

Well, you can replace "Debian can't distribute C" by "Debian can't  
distribute C unless M is available". But this is very strange as it  
would mean that the advent of M changes the copyright status of C, which  
is actually derieved from A and O.

Claus
-- 
http://www.faerber.muc.de



Reply to: