Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no> writes:
> 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
Considering the size of the .deb for fileutils, I think you are
mistaken. Otherwise .deb's are packed extremely well :-) In case you
haven't caught the point yet, does accompany not cater for whats
distributed on some media or other, but whats distributed as a
whole. Just like you (normally) don't accompany people in other
cars, but (again normally) those in the car you're driving.
> 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.
Grasping for straws?
--
/Wegge
Reply to: