On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said: > Flame bait alert: > I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and > I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see > from the "users" view if the GPL spreads over or not (and the usual > technical terms like "linking" are basically irrelevant). > E.g.: > - You are distributing an application which links against a GPL-library. > If you provide a link and the user/customer has to get and install that > library, your application can have any license you wish. > - If you distribute an application and it installs automatically a > library (e.g. from the CD where your application is installed), your > applications license must "fit" wit the library license.
So tell me - if RedHat distributes a non-GPL program that uses a GPL library that is included as part of the distribution, but *not* one that's usually installed, which rules apply? Even better - does this mean that I can *intentionally* bypass the licensing by including a installer script that removed a problematic library, and then forces the user to re-install it?
pgpYyXP1m6V0a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
