Re: beta status
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:27:52PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > > Actually, we could simply make an exception for miboot and get it into the
> > > > > > archive, i think it is no worse than other cases (like amiboot, which is
> > > > > > linked to parts of amigaos, and thus non-free), and we do distribute those (or
> > > > > > at least used to distribute those in the woody times).
> > > > >
> > > > > Amiboot is not linked to parts of AmigaOS. It is linked to libnix.
> > > >
> > > > which in turn is not in the archive, so amiboot can never be in anything but
> > >
> > > It's statically linked (and libnix is public domain, according to Google :-).
> > Still not in debian/main, so amiboot needs to go to contrib.
> There's also no Amigaos cross-gcc in Debian.
Hehe, indeed, which is why it could only go to contrib. Same case as with
miboot, since you need code-warrior 4 to build it on os <X. Well, a bit less
so since you can use gcc at least.
> > > > contrib, and still we distribute it. and is libnix not kind of linked to some
> > > > amigaos or amigarom parts ?
> > >
> > > No, you don't have to link to anything to make AmigaOS calls. All you need to
> > > know is that address 4 stores a pointer to exec.libary.
> > Well, maybe, but that still counts as linking, i doubt there is any more
> > philosophical difference in doing this than dynamically linking with a
> > library.
> I think you can consider it the equivalent of a system call, i.e. normal usage
> of the OS API.
Because of the system library exception in the GPL, yes.