[OT] The GPL and possible violations

[Temlakos]

Don Bedsole wrote:
> Hi,
> Ok, I have to admit, I have not been playing close attention to this 
> discussion, but what I have seen has raised a question for me.  I would like 
> a clarification.  Do I, as an end user have the right to install non-GPL 
> software (e.g. RealPlayer) on my Linux box if it links to GPL software?  Can 
> I install non-GPL software which links to anything it wants to on my 
> computer?  Is it legal for non-GPL software distributors (RealPlayer, et. al) 
> to furnish software to me which links to GPL software?  Wouldn't it only be a 
> problem if I were to somehow redistribute the non-GPL--GPL software 
> combination?  In other words, can non-GPL distributors (again RealPlayer for 
> example), give me whatever software they want to, which links to whatever it 
> wants to, as long as I, the end-user, do not distribute the resulting 
> GPL-non--GPL combination?  Thank you.

I had always thought that you /are/ permitted to install non-GPL 
software on your own box, even if it links to GPL software. Indeed, the 
/Lesser/ or /Library/ GPL specifically permits you to /link/ to publicly 
licensed libraries, so long as you do not try to /modify/ those 
libraries and then claim ownership over them.

Then again, the GPL maintainers are under no obligation to respect 
backward compatibility of a non-GPL application. The commercial vendor 
thus must accept the responsibility of rebuilding his program when 
necessary.

But you may not /distribute/ a GPL/non-GPL package.

This is why Fedora /never/ distributes with MP3 libraries or 
applications. You have to get them separately from another repository, 
if you want to play something in that format. And I assume that most 
people here would advise you never to /rip/ to MP3, but rather stick to 
Ogg-Vorbis or other GPL sound format.

If I have misconstrued any of the above, I welcome any correction.

Temlakos