Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument > here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken.
You are actually creating straw mans which are broken. The original argument isn't. The argument, simplified, basically goes like this: 1. Program A is licensed under the GPL. => Debian can distribute A. Library M is licensed under the GPL. => Debian can distribute M. Program B is a derivative of A, which dynamically links against M. => Debian can distribute B. 2. Library O is licensed under the a BSD-like license, which contains an advertisting clause. => Debian can still distribute O. Program C is a derivative of A, which dynamically links against O. => Debian can't distribute C. 3. Library M is fully compatible to O. So programs B and C are actually identical. => Debian can and can't distribute B/C at the same time. => This can't be right. So one of the assumptions made above is wrong. The only assumption that is not obviously right is: "Debian can't distribute C". Well, you can replace "Debian can't distribute C" by "Debian can't distribute C unless M is available". But this is very strange as it would mean that the advent of M changes the copyright status of C, which is actually derieved from A and O. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
