[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL question

From: me
Subject: Re: GPL question
Date: 12 Mar 2007 16:30:53 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

> Then you are not copying or distributing foo and so its license does not
> impinge upon you.

Well, doesn't this just seem like a total legal loophole in the GPL?
What if i don't even ask the user to press a button, what if i just,
upon install, as part of the install, just download and install the
"foo" in the background?  From the user's perspective, it *seems*
built in, and from my perspective, it's just a technical difference,
either "foo" comes with the initial download or it comes when the user
first invokes it's function (which triggers the download-install of
"foo")?  Is invoking a download and auto-install technically the same
as "distributing"?  and if not, it's a rather gaping hole in the whole
licensing scheme.  basically as long as "foo" can be invoked via
command line or is otherwise scriptable, you can totally blow off the
GPL and treat it like LGPL??

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]