[License-discuss] Linking question

[Bruce Perens]

Larry,

I know of multiple parties who have settled by
Ceasing to manufacture the product
or
Releasing a new version of their binary software along with complete and 
corresponding source code.

Some of these cases involved replacing binaries that were static linked 
to LGPL software with binaries that were dynamic linked, to satisfy the 
requirement that the two pieces be seperable so that the LGPL piece 
could be modified by the end-user.

In all of the cases that I know of, the parties had available to them 
the strategy of asserting that their work was not derivative, and 
providing the GPL source only without reference to the proprietary 
components of their products. Surely, many of them have read your book. 
However, none of these parties chose to do so.

You may well be right. Nobody, however, has found it economical to 
invest the resources to prove that in court.

     Thanks

     Bruce

  On 03/02/2012 09:16 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> NOBODY has ever settled such a case such that their code must be released.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120302/a2f181ae/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120302/a2f181ae/attachment.p7s>