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

Re: hplip: hp-toolbox advertising?



On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 16:53 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:03:18AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > 
> > It does not, go back and read the GPL, the GPL does not apply to other
> > programs/binaries source even if shipped on the same medium. And a
> > package is a sort of convenience medium you use to ship sources.
> 
> That's certainly what is debatable. Is everything in a src.rpm 
> covered by the clause 3.b of the GPL.? I thought so, but I may
> be wrong. Here is the clause:
> 
>     b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>     whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>     part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>     parties under the terms of this License.
> 
> 
> > part of the package) and ship them. If one is GPLed the other does not
> > become automatically GPLed (that would be viral! But the GPL is not).
> 
> The GPL is viral as the above clause shows, the issue is: is 
> a src.rpm 'mere aggregation' or a 'work distributed and published...'
> I thought that it wasn't mere agregation and that it had to conform
> to the clause 3.b. I may be wrong. In any case I think that it could
> only be a court that would definitly settle such issue.

You are wrong.  If that theory were true, it means you could take GPLd
program A, untar the source to directory A, take non-GPLd program B,
untar the source to directory B, and then create a new tarball
containing both of those directories and now both programs must be
licensed under the GPL.

Being in the same tarball, SRPM, CD, DVD, etc. does not make it a
derivative work.

josh


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