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

Re: samba license change



Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

If you have the right to distribute each component separately and the
existence of a usable gplv2 copy prevents things that happen to link
to the gplv3 version from being considered a derivative work, what's
the
problem
Because you can't limit yourself to analysing components separately.
The distribution itself is an aggregate work that is subject to
copyright laws as a whole.
Yes, but one part only affects another if it can be considered a derivative work,

The distribution *as a whole* is a derivative work. You can say parts
are mere aggregation but that does not work for parts that link together
and have no alternative within the distribution (or alternatives
distribution tools will never install). Fedora would not be liable for
GPLv2 foo or GPLv3 samba separately, but by distributing a "Fedora"
product which is both together.

In the case of fgmp vs. gmp it was never necessary to distribute the fgmp library. The mere fact that it existed as a possible alternate kept the code that might link to it from being considered a derivative work of gmp - which is what everyone actually used.

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com




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