[sf-lug] Potential GPL violation, with the potential intent to victimize our Elderly loved ones

Michael Shiloh michaelshiloh1010 at gmail.com
Fri Nov 13 20:17:52 PST 2009

well, you can ask RMS about this on Monday

Jesse Zbikowski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>> It is OK for non-free software to depend on and connect to free
>>> software... however if they are so tightly connected as to form a
>>> single program, as in the combination of a kernel with modules, then
>>> the resulting single program is a derived work.
>> That's not really it.
> Correct, I am not attempting to recapitulate Linus' argument about
> aggregation, but advancing a separate point, which is: this distro is
> OK under GPL because the non-free Eldy software is not tightly coupled
> with GPL'd components such as the Linux kernel. Assuming Eldy is a
> standalone program in its own right, such that we could easily swap
> out Linux and run it on BSD or Windows, that's a good indication it is
> NOT derived from Linux. If Eldy were more tightly coupled in the sense
> that it "has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal Linux
> behaviour" then we can make an argument that it IS derived from Linux:
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html
> In the first case we have what the GPL calls an "independent and
> separate work" which does not require source disclosure; whereas in
> the second case we would view Linux as the "base work" and Eldy as an
> "elaboration" of it.
> Again this is just my own interpretation; clarifications to my
> thinking are always welcome.
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/

More information about the sf-lug mailing list