Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > So don't put the binary in "main" :-); it's not so hard to have users
> > compile the 2-3 apps that fall within the "KDE developers borrowed GPL
> > code from another project" category.
>
> We're not putting it in main.
>
> > > What does it mean for a program to accompany itself? Why do you raise
> > > this point?
> >
> > It's not that the program accompanies itself. The paragraph of Section 3 in
> > question deals in terms of "components" and "modules", not entire executables. So
> > in the hypothetical case we discuss, libc is a "component" (although statically
> > linked, the library is a separate binary inside the "executable", if I understand
> > the linking process correctly) which accompanies the GPL'd component inside the
> > executable.
>
> Component, in the GPL, refers to "major component of the operating
> system". The word is only used twice, and both occurrences are in the
> same sentence (this sentence is part of the special exception which
> lets GPLed code be used on proprietary operating systems). And, the
> GPL explicitly gives the kernel and the compiler as explicit examples
> of what it means in that context.
Does non-sequitor mean anything to you?
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: