On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:51:22AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> > > > 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? I for one do not. Aggregation on a CD or on an FTP site has never been an issue with the GPL. In another section, in a slightly different context, it is in fact explicitly stated that mere aggregation does not bring non-derived software under the scope of the GPL, and I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that libc is derived from ls :) But lets think about this for a moment: the reason for the existence of that clause is specifically so that GPL code can be used on non-free systems. You are attempting to draw a dividing line that says that one may use GPL code on a non-GPL OS only if that code is not on the same CD-ROM as that operating system. This, judging from the commentary, is making you look somewhat silly to some people. =========================================================================== Zed Pobre <zed@va.debian.org> | PGP key on servers, fingerprint on finger ===========================================================================
Attachment:
pgpZcW4PqxDGb.pgp
Description: PGP signature