samba license change
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Fri Oct 12 05:46:02 UTC 2007
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>>> 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.
In the case of fgmp vs. gmp it was never necessary to distribute the
fgmp library. The mere fact that it existed as a possible alternate
kept the code that might link to it from being considered a derivative
work of gmp - which is what everyone actually used.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the devel
mailing list