Sorry, but this is quite different...
Posted Feb 18, 2011 16:28 UTC (Fri) by khim
In reply to: Again: "derived work" is meaningless here.
Parent article: PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL
Sigh. Sega never distributed anything from Accolade. Accolade never distributed anything from Sega.
There are no doubt that if distribution does not include readline library but includes openssl library you are allowed to link your product with both [system] openssl and [non-system] readline: the whole thing which you are distibuting is most probably not derived (like in Sega v. Accolade case) and, in fact, GPL contains explicit permission for such a case.
Now, if you distribute the single package on a CD which includes both openlssl and readline then there are no doubts that this combination is compilation of both works! You don't even need any linkage for it to be compilation - and while compilations have some additional rules you still need permissions from all authors. GPL gives you two choices: either the whole compilation is distributed under GPL or you can combine totally unrelated things to form it ("mere aggregation" clause).
Sega v. Accolade will be relevant in cases like nVidia driver: where some piece is distributed under GPL, another piece under proprietary license but they are never combined to form the single compilation (except by the end user who has a right to do this and more as long as he does not distribute the result).
So... Close but no cigar.
P.S. It's interesting to note that by your reasoning you actually can include LGPLed (and even GPLed) libraries in distribution and as long is interfaces are not too rich (== don't include tons of non-trivial inlined functions) third-party developers will be allowed to use them. Again: as long as these third-party developments don't come pre-installed. This interpretation may even be correct, but it's not relevant to Debian case.
to post comments)