Re: [Djvu-gsdjvu] [djvu - DjVuLibre Development] AT&T legality

[Leon B. <le...@bo...>]

In summary, Dave says that AT&T is not allowed to 
distribute its own source code under the licence it chooses
because the only and intended use of this source code
is to be linked against a GPL'd program (Ghostscript not Ghostview).

Maybe this argument can convince AT&T to release under the GPL
instead of the CPL.  However I am not the right person to make this point. 
I do not have the legal credentials for making such a technical point.

- L.



On Wednesday 13 July 2005 04:07 am: 
> Read and respond to this message at: 
> https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3245740
> By: alih
> 
> I have sent a question to FSF about the AT&T legality in this situation. And
> the answer is interesting. Here it is (I have mistaken GhostScript for GhostView
> in a hurry):
> 
> > A company (AT&T) is distributing their program (GSDjVu) under a free 
> > but not GPL-compatible license (CPL). The distribution contains only 
> > the source and has no GPL'd parts. However, the only and intended use 
> > of this source is to be linked against a GPL'd program (GhostView). Is 
> > that legal?
>  
> No.  Please tell the copyright holders of GhostView.
>  
>-Dave "Novalis" Turner
> GPL Compliance Engineer
> Free Software Foundation