Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[Patrik Stridvall]

> > But most apps wine will run *cannot* use a GPLed component.  GPL
> > expressly forbids being linked to a nonGPLed component.  
> *GPL does not
> > only cover the source, but rather the USE of the components 
> as well. 
> > Read the
> > license.  It's quite an eye opener.
> 
> I'd argue (though IANAL) that a nonGPLed win32 executable 
> running under 
> wine is not being "linked" to any GPL component - wine itself may be 
> linking to its own GPL components at run-time depending on 
> what's going on 
> with the win32 executable. But in terms of true linkage, I'd 
> have viewed 
> the win32 executable as more like a document that causes the host 
> application (wine) to load appropriate sub-components with 
> which to process 
> the document. MS Word (to use an example) might have to 
> dynamically link in 
> a special MS Word component to process specifics in my 
> document, it doesn't 
> mean my document is "linked" with the MS Word component does it?

Ah, you are beginning to see the problem. :-)

This is the spot on one of the main problem with the GPL.

Proponents of the GPL are trying to use the doctrine of derived work
as a means to achieve their goal without realizing (or rather ignoring)
that if the doctrine of derived work supported want they wanted it would
also, as a logical consequence, support to the absurdity you meantioned
above.

This is why I firmly oppose the doctrine of derived work and instead
hope that the courts will embrace the much more senisible doctrine
of combined work that I have been talking about earlier.

Of course a strict doctrine of combined work would make the GPL and
for that matter the LGPL largely meaningless, since you could distribute
the LPGL work, the proprietory patch and a combining script seperately
and let the user do the combining as thus no combined work is distributed
and thus no violation of copyright law.

Note that a doctrine of combined work doesn't effect normal commercial
software at all since the end user is legally required to pay for the
software if he uses it, regardless of whether the user used some patch
offered under whatever license. It ONLY effects viral licenses.

> Of course, we could all ask RMS his opinion but we all know 
> he'll interpret 
> it (once again) to mean whatever is required to spread his 
> GPL tenderhooks 
> as far as possible. Living in Wellington, NZ I'm having to 
> fight back hard 
> the temptation to make a "Sauron" joke here ... :-)

I don't believe RMS is evil, quite the opposite, just that:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"