Re: Licensing, was elvis package
At 09:40 26-04-98 -0600, James LewisMoss wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:52:32 +0300 (IDT), Shaya Potter
<spotter@kby.netmedia.net.il> said:
>
> >> My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the
> >> components of a program being free, what with the large quantity
> >> of programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action?
>
> Shaya> Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute
> Shaya> emacs linked or with the ability to link out of the box
> Shaya> against Motif?
>
>Motif (and other 'normally distributed' libraries) on a system are an
>exception to this rule else no glped program could be linked on a
>system that uses it's standard libc (not gpled of course). Motif is
>considered a standard part of many Unix installations, so linking with
>Motif in that case is perfectly OK. (though of dubious legality on a
>Linux installation actually (since Linux does not distribute Motif as
>a standard part of the OS)).
What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality is it's
own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to distribute a
GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian?
Essentially, I think that this part of the GPL is very vauge, and when comes
down to real legal terms is on the shaky side.
As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, from a
legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared libraries,
"essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone would really try to
challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it would stand up.
Shaya
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: