On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:05:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that > >component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to > >count as "accompanying" when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff > >appears in Debian's main archive. I've argued that this is the > >interpretation that is most likely to fit RMS's intentions with the > >GPL. > This interpretation does seem to have the side effect of rendering > NetBSD's distribution of gcc (for instance), uhm, interesting. Has > anyone actually asked RMS what his intention here was? > (And does it suddenly become legal if we distribute a bootstrap install > which contains no GPLed software from somewhere else and then provide > the rest of userland from debian.org? This seems a little, uhm, bizarre) Would you agree that it's more inconvenient to have to distribute the NetBSD port from two different networks, and burn two different CDs to get even a minimal install set? In this sense, it doesn't seem bizarre at all to me: that sort of inconvenience is just what RMS hopes to impose on vendors of proprietary software who try to leverage GPL works. The fact that vendors of incompatibly-licensed BSD code are caught in the crossfire is unfortunate, but I think it's quite unavoidable given the GPL's premise. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpp9pTlFRTeX.pgp
Description: PGP signature