Re: [Linphone-developers] G729 support in mediastremer2

[Petr Pisar]

On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 12:26:31AM -0700, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> 
> --- On Sat, 7/31/10, Mike Frysinger <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > From: Mike Frysinger <address@hidden>
> > Subject: Re: [Linphone-developers] G729 support in mediastremer2
> > To: "Sergei Steshenko" <address@hidden>
> > Cc: "kl" <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> > Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010, 10:55 PM
> > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 00:47, Sergei
> > Steshenko wrote:
> > > Which violation and where ? Again, GPL mandates ways
> > of _distribution_,
> > > it imposes no limitation on how one can use a GPL
> > program at home/his/her
> > > organization.
> > 
> > and Gentoo distributes ISOs with nvidia drivers that get
> > compiled on
> > the end users system and loaded on the fly.  as for
> > general packages,
> > the point is that if Gentoo was a binary distro and
> > compiled/distributed the packages, it'd be a clear
> > violation.  but we
> > distribute source & build instructions, so any user who
> > wants to
> > redistribute their build is violating.  thus the issue
> > is delayed one
> > "generation".
> > -mike
> > 
> 
> Which issue ?
> 
> For example, on my SUSE new ATI closed source drivers are compiled with
> the kernel on my machine when I download the RPM.
> 
Do you talk about commercial SUSE or non-commercal OpenSUSE? Does the package
come from official repository, or is it a third party repository hosted by
someone somewhere outside of U.S.A. and west or central Europe? (I just ask to
check the repository).

Nevertheless, fact somebody violates license does not excuse others to do so.

The issue is very simple: GPL (let's talk about version 2) states recipient
must get software under GPL terms (including linked objects) and must be able
to obtain source under the same terms.

If producer distributes non-GPL object and GPL source, then all terms are met:
Recipient got source for any GPL code and he got it under the same terms. The
matter he got some non-GPL object in addition does not infrigine GPL because
the code the two pieces are completly separate.

If producer distributes script that gets the GPL code and non-GPL object as
input and it outputs a binary including both of them, then it's O.k. too
because the script is standalone software and thus is not affected by licence
terms of its input.

And this how, for example, nVidia or AMD distribute their proprietary drivers.
And this a way how source based distributions like Gentoo delivers the
software to users.

Just a notice to clarify issues on user side: GPL does not mandate any
conditions on user side: User can do with the code whatever he wants
(excluding redistribution).

-- Petr

pgp3R8ob3O1Ly.pgp
Description: PGP signature