Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]

[Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no>]

Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
> that's almost the exact opposite of what the GPL says.
> 
> from clause 3 of the GPL:

I've read clause three, thank you.  I'll upper-case the bit you
must have missed:

>         The source code for a work means the preferred form of the
>         work for making modifications to it.  For an executable work,
>         complete source code means all the source code for all modules
>         it contains, plus any associated interface definition files,
>         plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation
>         of the executable.  However, as a special exception, the source
>         code distributed need not include anything that is normally
>         distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
>         components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system
>         on which the executable runs, UNLESS THAT COMPONENT ITSELF
>         ACCOMPANIES THE EXECUTABLE.
> 
> the last sentence, from "However, as a special exception" is particularly
> relevant here.

It's clear that (e.g.) libc accompanies (e.g.) /bin/ls in Debian: They
are both in main, and the package maintainer makes sure you get libc
when you get /bin/ls.  If you also think that libc is a "section of"
(see section two) /bin/ls and so on, then the conclusion is clear:
You're in contravention of the GPL as you read it.

> read the GPL. think about it. read it again. think some more. repeat
> until all is clear.

Physician, heal thyself.

--Arnt