On 05/29/2014 09:18 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:47:31AM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
> IANAL, but if the added GPL3 code is, as Richard said, an "isolated
utility"
> that is not linked to any of the GPL2+ code (an assumption about the nature of
> an "isolated utility"), then isn't this "mere aggregation"?
I didn't say anything about an isolated utility, but now I see that
Tim did. So my original assumption was that there was something more
than 'mere' aggregation, but if that's not true then the answer and
analysis are different (and easier). Or rather the end result is
objectively the same, but the way you look at it might be different.
I concur. If the new code is an isolated utility, then that specific
binary would clearly be GPLv3, while the rest of the codebase would
remain GPLv2+. In my non-lawyery, non-legal advisey, opinion, of course.
~tom
==
¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> OSAS @ Red Hat
University Outreach || Fedora Special Projects || Fedora Legal