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