hplip: hp-toolbox advertising?

[Patrice Dumas]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:39:39PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 
> It is mere aggregation since the other parts do not contain or derive 
> from any software licensed under the GPL. If I licensed my software 
> under say MIT X11 license then there is simply no way another license 
> can automatically relicense my software under any different license. 
> That simply does not work under copyright law. You can however produce a 
> derivative work if both components are under compatible licenses. The 
> act of putting distinct packages in the same srpm creates no such 
> derivative work. See if you can find any relatively well known sources 
> agreeing with you.  IMO this is not a gray area that requires any court 
> case to clarify.

Ok. I don't remember where I saw that, or if I just imagined it myself.

> Rahul
> 
> PS: We really really should not be playing lawyers here. If you have a 
> actual case that would affect Fedora and there is no general consensus 
> we can ask the real lawyers. Otherwise do take this discussion off 
> fedora-devel.

In my opinion this is for fedora-devel, since it impacts on reviews.
I have repeatedly annoyed submitters by saying that a src.rpm as a whole
was a derived work of each of the tarballs. Now I stand corrected.
Similarly I have argued that all the files in a tarball needed to be
GPL compatible if there was a single GPL file in the tarball, this seems
to be wrong too, if the 2 files don't have any relationship at link time
and no runtime inclusion (say a C program and a script).

--
Pat