[OT] The GPL and possible violations

[Mike McCarty]

Don Bedsole wrote:
> Hi,

Ok, taking the LGPL and GPL at face value, with what seems to be
their intended interpretations, and presuming that the courts
would actually enforce what they seem to say, and AIUI...

> 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 

Yes. AFAICT, no restriction is placed on the receiver of bootleg
applications by either GPL or LGPL. OTOH, IANAL, and there may
be *other* precedent which applies to such recipients.

> I install non-GPL software which links to anything it wants to on my 
> computer?

With all caveats, yes. But remember, someone who knowingly receives
stolen goods is known as a "fence" and commits an offence. I do not
know what collateral effects there may be. But AFAICT, neither
LGPL nor GPL prohibit that.

 >  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 

NO. This is precisely what is prohibited by GPL, and as I read it,
also by LGPL.

> 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.

No, they cannot. This is precisely what the GPL, and AIUI the LGPL
prohibit.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!