Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:

> Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
>
>> There is clear tension between this and the "mere aggregation" clause.
>> However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
>> modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
>> by the mere aggregation clause than the treatment of the executable
>> work itself.
>
> You can distribute compiled binaries only if you distribute all the
> interface definition files for building them under GPL-compatible
> terms.  There is a special exception for some cases, but when that
> special exception does not apply, it does not matter what the mere
> aggregation clause says, because that clause is simply not about the
> compiled binaries section of the GPL.

My reading of the "interface definition files" clause is that it only
applies to those associated with the modules contained in the
executable.  That is, it means header files as well as implementation
files (plus Makefile-equivalents, through the "build scripts" bit) for
what actually goes into the binary.  It is not clear to me that
standard library header files qualify as "associated interface
definition files".

Even if they do, the viral part of it seems to be abuse of copyright
when applied to an underlying software library.  Constraining the
license of software that is:
  (a) in no way dependent on or derived from the GPLed work,
  (b) by design used by the GPLed work, and
  (c) would not be subject to the license if the GPLed work were on
      separate media
is not what I would call proper or appropriate use of reserved rights,
and I find it hard to believe a court would uphold the interpretation
you propose.

Michael Poole