Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
> I will skip the lengthy enumeration of people who distribute binaries
> without distributing the system header files -- distributors of whole
> operating systems are relatively rare -- since the obvious retort is
> that those distributors can take advantage of "unless that component
> itself accompanies the executable".
Why is this a retort? It's the GPL's explicit permission that you can
do this. That's the *intention* of the license.
> Here again I think that it is DFSG-non-free and an improper
> application of copyright for an application to demand that an
> underlying library be made GPL compatible due merely to the
> application's distribution next to the library, especially given the
> mere aggregation language in section 2.
It is not due *merely* to the application's distribution next to the
library. It is also due to the fact that the application is *linked*
with the library. If it were not linked to it, there would be no
issue.
Keep in mind that with static libraries, the binary application walks
around with a *copy* of the library in it. Surely the complete source
code for that binary includes, well, the *complete* source code for
it. Keep in mind that changing the linking technology but preserving
the same intent does not affect the operation of the license,
especially given that even shared libraries still include parts of the
library code into the resulting binary.
Further discussion should be on debian-legal; it's increasingly
off-topic here.
Thomas
Reply to: