Re: GPL Mere Aggregation question

[avesty]

On Dec 27, 7:06 pm, John Hasler <j...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> avesty writes:
> > I like the idea of the GPL and what it stands for, just not this apparent
> > openness to 'interpretation'.
>
> Then you won't like any legal document of any kind.

I didn't realize the goal of the GPL was for it to be interpreted and
implemented differently by each group that uses it... That seems to
work entirely against the goal of its widespread adoption.

> > It seems there should be definitive defendable answers to questions like
> > the ones I have...
> > ...
> > That's the other reason I asked if there were lawyers that specialize
> > in this sort of thing...
>
> If you expect a definitive defendable answer from a lawyer you are going to
> be disappointed.  Why don't you ask the author of the GPL software?  Get
> written permission from him and you are safe no matter what.

The software is ghostscript. The company that sells commercial
licenses to the software has two choices - the first is to give me
written permission to bundle, the second is to not give me written
permission and instead require me to buy a $30k commercial license
that lets me do whatever I please - as a for profit business it's
obvious which they'd prefer. Buying a $30k license isn't an option for
me, so I'm attempting to explore what I can legally and safely do
according to GPL. The answers from the ghostscript company are along
the lines of "The GPL is viral, you can't bundle/distribute it
together with anything non GPL under any circumstances", yet The GPL
FAQ tells me I'm fine. I even sent the portions of the FAQ to the
company in my initial enquiry and was told something to the effect of
"no we don't look at it like that". Makes things a little difficult.

--
Ad