On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:38:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > The same text appears in the GPL. > > If you're really going to argue that the code in question cannot "be > reasonably considered independent", the original license clause is a > no-op. Why are you worried about what the license says about > distributing in isolation something that you believe cannot be isolated? Not the same thing; I *can* isolate any given line of code from anything. That doesn't make it reasonable to consider every line of code independant, in this context. > If it can be distributed as a separate work, the GPL says it's ok that > this separate work carry a different license. It says that only if you don't distribute them both together. We do distribute them together. > If it can't be > distributed as a separate work, then at a minimum, that term of the > license is a no-op -- and at most, there may be nothing left that the > original authors can claim copyright on. Let's try this from the other end. I stipulate that the GPL guarantees all components *can* be distributed under the same terms as the GPL. I should therefore be able to take any such component and work with it under the terms of the GPL. This does not hold for the sunrpc code. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpCFNPmbp0sa.pgp
Description: PGP signature