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

Re: samba license change

Le jeudi 11 octobre 2007 à 11:36 -0500, Les Mikesell a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le Jeu 11 octobre 2007 16:55, Les Mikesell a écrit :
> > 
> >> 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.

Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

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