[linux-dvb] Re: [vdr] Re: Re: Bad news (summary)

["Andres Torrubia" <antor@trymedia.com>]

> On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 06:38:23PM +0100, Andres Torrubia wrote:
> > Im not a layer, but the GPL reads
> (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html):
> >
> > 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
> > infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
> > conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
> > otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
> > excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
> distribute so
> > as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any
> > other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
> distribute
> > the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit
> > royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who
> receive copies
> > directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could
> satisfy both
> > it and this License would be to refrain entirely from
> distribution of the
> > Program.
>
> I'm aware of this paragraph of the GPL ... IMHO this does not fit
> on a separate binary only modul or library from an other distributor
> which is used by a GPL'ed software.  There are many binary only moduls
> and libraries out there which are used by GPL'ed software ... think about
> system libraries of any comerical OS.

Using a module by invoking a documented, externally exposed interface is one
thing (such as command-line), but using it in such a way that you _need_ to
know how it internally works is different.  Do you know of any GPL'd program
that is distributed (and intertwined) WITH a binary for which you cannot get
the sources under the same terms as the GPL?

-Andres



-- 
Info:
To unsubscribe send a mail to listar@linuxtv.org with "unsubscribe linux-dvb" as subject.