Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) writes:

>>> There have been some indications that a source distribution is
>>> allowed, even if a binary distribution is not.  Could someone
>>> clarify?
>>
>> I must have missed the message that talked about this.  My understanding
>> is that the only case this might apply is when the source isn't actually
>> intended for compilation (e.g., it's in book form).
>
> The argument is that the source code isn't derived from the library.
> Names of functions are not normally covered by copyright.  If they
> were, GnuTLS couldn't have an OpenSSL compatible interface.

Sure.  And I don't think anybody's told you that the framework,
written in a clean-room fashion from API documentation, is a
derivative work.

The package of the framework and the plugins and the libraries, all
set up to run together, however, is clearly a derivative work -- do we
agree this far?

The package of the framework and the plugins may or may not be a
derivative work of the libraries, but it doesn't matter in most cases
since the libraries are normally part of the OS -- see the text in the
GPL about this.

But for Debian, that exception doesn't apply: Debian distributes the
whole OS.

-Brian