Re: GNU License, Again

[David Kastrup]

byron@upstairs.(none) (Byron Jeff) writes:

> In article <1179783907.683514.123100@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> mike3  <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org>
>
>>> mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>> > So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique-
>>> > functionality component, however I do NOT distribute it (the GPL
>>> > program, not the non-GPL one) in a non-GPL way and only distribute
>>> > the NON-GPL components of the program (ie. the ORIGINAL) ones in the
>>> > non-GPL way (since I own it I can do whatever the heck I please),
>>> > then it is still OK, since I'm still not trying to take over or
>>> > restrict the GPL program and the GPL program is still being
>>> > distributed for free.
>
>>> That's not the letter of the GPL you are obeying, but some fuzzy
>>> notion of yours.  The problem here is contributory infringement: the
>>> infringement is _planned_ and _prepared_ by you with the end-assembly
>>> to be done in a mechanical way by the customer as your agent.
>
>>How is there the infringement when the GPL part is still distributed
>>under the GPL?
>
> Asked and answered. Your code does not function without the GPL code
> in this scenario. Therefore it's a derivative of the GPL code.

No.  The binary resulting from _linking_ _with_ the GPLed code is a
derivative.  If your code has no purpose except for being linked with
the GPLed code, you are basically letting the end user perform the
linking as an agent of yours, and thus are still responsible for the
results.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum