Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.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
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
=> 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.