On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said: > Flame bait alert: > I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and > I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see > from the "users" view if the GPL spreads over or not (and the usual > technical terms like "linking" are basically irrelevant). > E.g.: > - You are distributing an application which links against a GPL-library. > If you provide a link and the user/customer has to get and install that > library, your application can have any license you wish. > - If you distribute an application and it installs automatically a > library (e.g. from the CD where your application is installed), your > applications license must "fit" wit the library license. So tell me - if RedHat distributes a non-GPL program that uses a GPL library that is included as part of the distribution, but *not* one that's usually installed, which rules apply? Even better - does this mean that I can *intentionally* bypass the licensing by including a installer script that removed a problematic library, and then forces the user to re-install it?
Attachment:
pgpsapX1Q3KpF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
- From: Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
- References:
- Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
- From: "Trent Waddington" <[email protected]>
- RE: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
- From: "David Schwartz" <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
- From: "v j" <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
- From: Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
- Prev by Date: Re: PCI riser cards and PCI irq routing, etc
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/7] Introduce the pagetable_operations and associated helper macros.
- Previous by thread: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
- Next by thread: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
- Index(es):
 |