On Mon, Apr 11, 2011, Aviad Mandel wrote about "A little GPL riddle (was: GPL as an evaluation license)": > And please, I know that the mixed binary is derived work and must be > distributed further under the same license. But the thing is that nobody
The key error here is the word "must". It's actually, "can". I.e., the person who gets this mixed binary *can* distribute it to others, and this is exactly what your hypothetical company is afraid of. This is the whole idea of "copyleft" - it isn't about guaranteeing the illegality of copying - it's about guaranteeing the freedom to copy. In other words, the company who did the hanky-panky you described did nothing illegal. But so would its users if they further distribute the mixed binaries. -- Nadav Har'El | Monday, Apr 11 2011, 7 Nisan 5771 n...@math.technion.ac.il |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |I have a watch cat! If someone breaks in, http://nadav.harel.org.il |she'll watch. _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
