Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
> > the GPL explicitly makes an exception for libraries which are included
> > with the operating system itself.
>
> Not quite so - it makes an exception for binaries that are NOT
> included with that operating system itself.
that's almost the exact opposite of what the GPL says.
from clause 3 of the GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the
work for making modifications to it. For an executable work,
complete source code means all the source code for all modules
it contains, plus any associated interface definition files,
plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation
of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source
code distributed need not include anything that is normally
distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system
on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
accompanies the executable.
the last sentence, from "However, as a special exception" is particularly
relevant here.
> Debian ships a large number of GPL'd binaries that are linked against
> LGPL'd libraries (chiefly libc). This practice is not compatible with
> what Debian says in the statement that started this thread - and I too
> think such incompatibility may reasonably be called "cheating".
>
> (Not that it's really relevant, but IMHO Debian's practice is right
> and the statement wrong.)
read the GPL. think about it. read it again. think some more. repeat
until all is clear.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: