GPL as an evaluation license

[Aviad Mandel]

2011/4/10 Oleg Goldshmidt <pub at goldshmidt.org>

>
> Another point that I mentioned in an earlier post but not sure if it
> registered. Consider the following hypothetical case.
>
> Vendor A (fits this case, huh) provides a library to Business B for
> evaluation, under GPL. Business B actually needs the library to work with
> their proprietary code and with code from Consultant C. Therefore,
> Consultant C's verdict is essential for evaluation.
>
>
I actually did register that remark, and wondered why my original workaround
for this doesn't apply. Let me take this to the extreme:

Suppose that Business B wants Consultant C's opinion with Vendor A's GPLed
library but without showing Mr. C any of Business B's sources. And it all
has to be statically linked.

Easy: Compile all Business B's sources into object files (.o, you know) but
don't link. Send Mr. C the objects and sources Vendor A supplied. Tell Mr. C
to compile and link the whole package (scripts, LiveDVDs whatever is needed
to make this painless). Now Consultant C has a legal binary.

But even this scenario isn't a threat, if the target market is microwave
ovens one talks to. Unless someone puts a C compiler + linker on the oven's
processor, to compile the code on its first use...

Corollary question: Given this situation, why should the binary distribution
be disallowed to anyone having compilation / linking abilities? It's a bit
like asking if I'm allowed to run a cracked version of software for which I
have bought a license.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/pipermail/linux-il/attachments/20110410/bfb29951/attachment-0001.html>