Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Les Mikesell]

Alan Cox wrote:
>> The license specifically states that you don't have to accept it to 
>> receive the rights it confers.
> 
> I would read that paragraph again if I was you
> 
> "However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
> prohibited by law if you do not accept this License"

I was describing the case where someone distributes additional different 
code that links to an unmodified GPL'd library - and perhaps to other 
libraries as well.  That might be in the form of source that links at 
compile time (as in the RIPEM case) or something that uses dynamic 
libraries.  The person distributing the additional code has no need to 
modify or distribute anything covered by the GPL.   The only possible 
claim against the additional code is that it is a derived work, which 
depends on knowing that no equivalent library exists under other terms. 
And as far as I know, no such theory has been tested in court.

There's also a more complicated issue where programs with dynamic 
loading or plugin capabilities are linked in unpredictable ways 
depending on circumstances.  For example a perl script might load the 
readline library if it is available and also a proprietary database 
client library - with the choice of database type made by the user at 
install time.  If this makes a covered combined work, who would be 
responsible for the violation?  Multimedia players that load plugin 
codecs on demand would raise a similar question.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com