Re: GPL and linking
On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >Switching sides again, if someone asserted that the mere
> >aggregation clause applied, and used program behavior to make that
> >assertion, and I believed that mere aggregation did not apply, I
> >would show how the program failed to operate in some independent
> >context, with the disputed section removed.
>
> It can *not* be used to *disprove* mere aggregation... because the
> defendant can substitute the disputed part for something *not*
> trivial (as in, substituting libssl by libtls or something) and the
> program will continue to work as usual.
In that case, it is up to the other party to show that this thing being
substituted is not trivial.
Remember: court cases are about judging the issues in question. The
judge can be relied on to understand the legal issues, but each
concerned party must take on the responsibility of presenting their
point of view.
> >Let's assume that this assertion is true, that the second part of
> >that definition is meaningless. Let's further assume that I can
> >construct an example case where a work isn't covered by the GPL
> >because the second part of that definition is meaningless. What
> >would that mean?
>
> It would mean you have a work that is a mere aggregation, and the
> GPL explicitly permits the licensee to distribute the
> merely-aggregated work.
False. The GPL only licenses works which are covered by the GPL.
Mere aggregation doesn't apply if the GPL does not apply.
> >Since Section 0 says that the GPL grants you license to distribute
> >this work, and since there's no part of the GPL that grants you
> >license where Section 0 does not apply, in our hypothetical case we
> >would have shown that the GPL does not grant you license to
> >distribute this work.
>
> You are still ignoring section 2, paragraph 3.
Do you mean:
"If the modified program normally reads commands interactively"?
Or do you mean the mere aggregation clause?
If you mean the mere aggregation clause (which is what your following
comments (which I snipped) imply), then you have to recognize that
Section 2 does not apply to works that are neither the "Program" nor
a "work based on the Program".
Once again: if Section 0 does not apply, then the GPL does not apply,
and therefore the GPL can't grant you license to copy that work.
--
Raul
Reply to: