[argyllcms] Re: Argyll bundled with professional proofing solution

  • From: "Gerhard Fuernkranz" <nospam456@xxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:54:36 +0200

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:24:41 +1000
Von: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
An: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [argyllcms] Re: Argyll bundled with professional proofing solution

> If someone wanted to write a UI for Argyll, then they are of
> course permitted to do so, as long as they comply with the
> offered GNU licence. If such a UI was implemented in a way
> that directly links with the Argyll code, then the resulting
> binaries are a derivative work, and the UI needs to be released
> under the GNU licence if it is to be distributed.

As the case of linking object code is explicitly mentioned in the GPL, I think 
there is rather no doubt.

> [...] but I think that any attempt to distribute
> the UI with Argyll would form a collective work, and the work
> would have to comply with the GNU licence.

But I'm wondering, whether this is really helpful in order to strictly enforce 
a GPL compatible license for the UI? Wouldn't it always be possible to bypass 
this by arranging the distribution in a way, such that the UI is distributed as 
a separate product (which needs to be ordered separately, and which is possibly 
distributed on a separate medium, if two separate directories on the same 
medium are not considered as sufficiently separated, or even shipped with 
separate mail, ...), so that it will be eventually the _end user_, who forms 
the collection by installing both independently acquired products on his PC? 
And the end user is not bound to the GPL, he can do anything he likes with 
GPL-licensed software, as long he doesn't distribute it.


Gerhard Fuernkranz

"Feel free" â 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail

Other related posts: