Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Les Mikesell]

Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> But none of those start with the ability of anyone to obtain their 
>> licensed copy freely, so there is no equivalence.  You'd have to start 
> 
> I've yet to see anywhere the law distinguishes "obtaining freely" from
> paying in terms of copyright licences.

The relevant point is that everyone who has the GPL'd library and is 
thus a potential user of the additional code which makes use of it _has_ 
the license since it applies to all copies.  The concept of a 'stolen' 
copy of a GPL covered library doesn't even make sense.

>> with the premise that everyone who could possible be the target of the 
>> claimed derived work's infringing copy already has their own licensed 
>> copy of the original. 
> 
> Not everyone neccessarily has a licensed copy of a GPL work. They may not
> have received one, they may have chosen not to accept the licence,

The license specifically states that you don't have to accept it to 
receive the rights it confers.

> they
> may have breached the licence and lost the right to use it.

The license specifically states that it does not cover use.

> They may even
> be in a situation where national law of a country prohibits them
> receiving a copy (eg US to Syria) and national law overrides licence and
> contract in almost all cases.

OK, then they aren't a potential user of the other code and wouldn't be 
involved.

>> It would be more like providing a custom case for  your own copy of a record than a 
>> compilation that includes the same content.
> 
> Thats a whole seperate can of worms, including trademark law, moral
> rights and isn't simple of itself 8(

Agreed, but the simple case is where someone does not copy or 
redistribute any of the original work but distributes separate code that 
uses the functions of a GPL'd library - and perhaps other 3rd party 
libraries as well.

-- 
    Les Mikesell
      lesmikesell at gmail.com