Re: hplip: hp-toolbox advertising?

[Simo Sorce <ssorce redhat com>]

On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 20:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> It is mere aggregation since the other parts do not contain or derive 
> from any software licensed under the GPL. If I licensed my software 
> under say MIT X11 license then there is simply no way another license 
> can automatically relicense my software under any different license. 
> That simply does not work under copyright law. You can however produce a 
> derivative work if both components are under compatible licenses. The 
> act of putting distinct packages in the same srpm creates no such 
> derivative work. See if you can find any relatively well known sources 
> agreeing with you.  IMO this is not a gray area that requires any court 
> case to clarify.

+1

> Rahul
> 
> PS: We really really should not be playing lawyers here. If you have a 
> actual case that would affect Fedora and there is no general consensus 
> we can ask the real lawyers. Otherwise do take this discussion off 
> fedora-devel.

+10