Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]

To: Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Cc: Steve Lamb <morpheus@teleute.ml.org>, "kde-licensing@kde.org" <kde-licensing@kde.org>, "kde-licensing@alpha.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de" <kde-licensing@alpha.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>, KDE general mailing list <kde@lists.netcentral.net>, debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no>
Date: 10 Oct 1998 05:51:22 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] m3emsh8479.fsf@lupinella.troll.no>
In-reply-to: Craig Sanders's message of "Sat, 10 Oct 1998 13:30:12 +1000 (EST)"
References: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.05.9810101328310.18872-100000@siva.taz.net.au>

Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
> as mentioned at least once before, glibc is distributed with the operating
> system.  therefore the special exception applies.

It applies to applications that are not distributed with the operating
system (and to other applications that are distributed along with, in
this example, glibc).

> how many times do we have to chase this one around?

Until we agree on what "accompany" (the critical word in the GPL)
means, I guess.  Do you agree that glibc accompanies ls if both are
distributed as part of, say, a Debian 2.0 CD?

--Arnt

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
  - From: Zed Pobre <zed@moebius.interdestination.com>
- Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
  - From: Anders Wegge Jakobsen <wegge@wegge.dk>

References:
- Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
  - From: Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

Prev by Date: Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
Next by Date: Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
Previous by thread: Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
Next by thread: Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread