Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:31:11 -0400 From: Greg Pavelcak <gpav@som.umass.edu> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Greg Pavelcak <gpav@som.umass.edu>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use/Utilize Message-ID: <20020408123111.GA65569@oitunix.oit.umass.edu> In-Reply-To: <3CB0E88E.828850F7@mindspring.com> References: <20020405183857.GA58446@oitunix.oit.umass.edu> <3CAE30C6.51C811DA@mindspring.com> <20020407211321.GA223@tower.my.domain> <3CB0E88E.828850F7@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:47:10PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Greg Pavelcak wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 03:18:30PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Greg Pavelcak wrote: > > > > For my own peace of mind, could someone provide an example where S uses A, > > > > but S does not utilize A. Or the other way 'round. > > > > > > "Bob used the GNU source code to produce a derivative work, > > > but he never utilized the resulting binary". > > > > Bzzzzzzzt! That's a case where S uses A but does not utilize B. > > Maybe you missed the source distribution/binary distribution > equivalence that the GPL attempts to establish. According > to the GPL B := A, or you don't have license to either. It's > an all or none proposition. > > -- Terry > I can assure you I missed it. I haven't read the GPL. That doesn't make this an example of what I was looking for. The issue at hand for me is whether cases of use and of utilization are coextensive. If they are, then, even if they have different meanings, I don't see how the distinction could be very interesting legally. Whether the GPL conflates source code and binaries is a complication unrelated to the question I originally posed. I should have said `Ignoring the GPL for the moment ...' Greg To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020408123111.GA65569>