Re: Integration of gettext in Perl

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

address@hidden (Paul Jarc) writes:

> address@hidden (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> > If the distributors are distributing things which can only be
> > plausibly used as such a combined product, then the fact that they
> > split things up instead of distributing things as one package is no
> > evasion.
> 
> So one work becomes a derivative work of another, not because of its
> contents, but because of how it can be useful?  Can you cite any
> statutes or case law supporting that?  Or, if it does not become a
> derivative work, how is it that the license of one component applies
> to another?

No, neither.  You're trying to simplify something in a way that just
doesn't work.

If the *total effect* of a bunch of people's actions is to break the
law, then anyone who does their piece in the expectation or intention
that the whole thing will happen, is responsible for the breach of
law.  This is true *even if* that person's act would not be illegal by
itself.

That is, if something is illegal, it remains illegal even if you split
it up into N different actions cleverly.

This is essential in the enforcement of the GPL.  If this weren't
true, then a malicious person could add a non-copylefted feature to
any GPL'd program by just splitting the GPL'd program into little
pieces.

I would suggest you look at the GPL FAQ
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html), particularly the section
on "Combining work with code released under the GPL".

Note when reading those questions: since the Artistic license is not
compatible with the GPL, for the present purpose it counts as a
"proprietary license".

For further information, the GNU Project would be happy to explain in
more detail.