Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
>
>> Then we will have to disagree on this point. When the restriction
>> supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing
>> on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I
>> have to think the "mere aggregation" clause dominates. The other
>> interpretation violates DFSG#9.
>
> No, that's not right. You are thinking of this as a derived work
> case, and it's not. There is no claim here about derived works.
I did not mean to bring derived works into the question; I agree that
there is no present claim about them. Why do you think my line of
argument is limited to questions of derived works?
The two license clauses in question are these:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License.
and:
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 first says that it does not apply to works derived from the GPLed
work -- but the C library (and its interfaces) are not derived works
of an application that uses them. The C library header files are also
in no way part of the preferred form for making modifications to the
GPLed work.
Michael Poole
Reply to: