On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 04:58:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > If that is the case the GPL contaminates other software (like the > > Debian distribution as a whole) by requiring that EVERY SINGLE THING > > we distribute be GPL. A specific example of something that the GPL > > would be trying to contaminate would be Apache. > > If people are distributing derivative works that include GPLed code and > apache, sure. But if apache is just calling /bin/sh, there's nothing > special about that -- any /bin/sh can be used. And if the apache module in question calls /bin/bash specifically? Or if /bin/bash calls apache? > > Fortunately, the GPL does not do this. I think it's approaching > > dellusional to believe otherwise, nothing in the GPL itself indicates > > that simply running a program or having another program run it should > > be considered a combined work. ANd in fact the GPL is careful to say > > that mere aggregation of GPL packages is perfectly acceptable if we > > follow the other restrictions in the GPL. > > Sure, and that has nothing to do with the Corel front end. The Corel > front end for dpkg is obviously intended to enhance dpkg. The line HAS to be drawn somewhere. ANY program can be said to enahnce ANY OTHER program. How clearly a program enhances another is completely an arbitrary opinion. Licenses should not be applied arbitrarily. (FWIW in this case I agree---their front end IS an attempt to enhance apt which is an attempt to enhance dpkg. They're seperate works though..) -- - Joseph Carter GnuPG public key: 1024D/DCF9DAB3, 2048g/3F9C2A43 - knghtbrd@debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <tigah_-> i have 4gb for /tmp <Knghtbrd> What do you do with 4G /tmp? Compile X? <tigah_-> yes
Attachment:
pgpExCyT7bePg.pgp
Description: PGP signature