[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL question
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: GPL question |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:31:35 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux) |
me@davecotter.com writes:
>> Then you are not copying or distributing foo and so its license
>> does not impinge upon you.
>
> Well, doesn't this just seem like a total legal loophole in the GPL?
> What if i don't even ask the user to press a button, what if i just,
> upon install, as part of the install, just download and install the
> "foo" in the background? From the user's perspective, it *seems*
> built in, and from my perspective, it's just a technical difference,
> either "foo" comes with the initial download or it comes when the
> user first invokes it's function (which triggers the
> download-install of "foo")? Is invoking a download and auto-install
> technically the same as "distributing"? and if not, it's a rather
> gaping hole in the whole licensing scheme. basically as long as
> "foo" can be invoked via command line or is otherwise scriptable,
> you can totally blow off the GPL and treat it like LGPL??
You'll find that judges are no mechanical idiots. If you plant a bomb
in someone's house, the person triggering it by falling over the
tripwire will not be the one convicted of murder.
If you drop a rock on someone's head, gravity is not going to be
incarcerated for not letting it float.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: GPL question, (continued)
- Re: GPL question, me, 2007/03/10
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/03/10
- Re: GPL question, me, 2007/03/12
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/03/13
- Re: GPL question, me, 2007/03/13
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/03/13
- Re: GPL question, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/03/13
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/03/14
- Re: GPL question,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/03/14
- Re: GPL question, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2007/03/10