On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Ben Reser wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 06:54:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > No, because we don't distribute X in base (or as an essential > > package.) > > > > [In general, if you can have a working system without Y, Y doesn't > > meet the OS exemption.] > > This really depends on how you define "normally distributed." I > think an arguable position can be made that Debian includes XFree86 > normally. Besides your standard doesn't even hold for the examples > the GPL gives. You don't need a compiler to have a working system, > yet the GPL gives a compiler as an example. The compiler is an example for some operating systems, but I'm not so confident that it applies to Debian. [See the recent discussion on -devel whether gcc should remain standard for an example of why I'm not so confident.] Perhaps we could define the normal distribution as all packages in base or standard... but I would be really wary about getting out of the GPL's derived requirement that way. > It also depends on how you define "the operating system which the > executable runs." This is generally the OS on which the executable as distributed is intended to run, which is (basically) Debian. > I'm not sure if FSF has weighed in on this issue but I'd guess > Debian would yield to whatever their interpretation of the issue > was. Yeah. My own personal feeling is that we shouldn't be distributing anything to which we need to apply this exception, unless it's something that we have historically considered to be covered under it. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature