GPL compliance

Alexander Skwar listen at
Fri Jun 30 06:29:41 UTC 2006

Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> Mario Vukelic <mario.vukelic at> writes:
>> On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 09:48 -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:

> As I said:
>    The hope is that all of these other owners have previously licensed
>    the software to everyone with some kind of general public license,
>    be it FSF GPL, BSD, MIT, X11, etc.
> That's a hope that all open-source publishers must have, unless
> they're foolish enough to have not thought about the issues much.

It's not a "hope". Well, it should not be. I suppose that every
distributor is clever enough to check the license of each and
evey package before it is included in the distribution.

> Redistributable software is redistributable only under the terms of
> their licenses.  The issue at hand is whether the OP can ignore,
> say, Red Hat's requirements, and simply satisfy Canonical's.

I'd think so. If Canonical is saying, that it is fine to redistribute
the Live CD, than I'd think, that it is fine, to redistribute the
Live CD. Granted, somebody might accuse me of something. But here
Canonical is at fault - at fault for giving out wrong contracts.

> was referring to.  From 17 USC 103:

There is no law called "USC" in germany. Because of that, that
law doesn't have to be followed. There might be laws in Germany,
which state more or less the same, though.

> BTW, 17 USC 101 has this interesting definition:

What? I can't find some "17 USC 101" in the laws, that I have to follow.
I don't care about laws that are in some foreign country.

Alexander Skwar
Interestingly enough, since subroutine declarations can come anywhere,
you wouldn't have to put BEGIN {} at the beginning, nor END {} at the
end.  Interesting, no?  I wonder if Henry would like it. :-) --lwall

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list