[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:21 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/9/2010 11:39 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
In any case, when dealing with a license, the first question is
always to determine whether a license is required at all for the
activity you wish to perform. If the answer is "no", then the
license need not be examined at all. So even if the GPL had not
qualified its definition of "modify" the result would be the same.

This, by the way, is why copying and distributing a program which
dynamically links to a GPLed library does not require distributing
that program under the GPL; regardless of what the FSF and the GPL
may say about dynamic linking, copying and distributing such a
program does not infringe any of the exclusive rights granted to
the holders of the copyrights on the linked-to library, and therefore
the license of the library need never be consulted when distributing
the program. (Assume for the purpose of clarity that the library is
not distributed with the program, but already exists on the platform
where the program will run.)

reply via email to

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