Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
> > > 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.
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 04:26:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Does non-sequitor mean anything to you?
Weren't you the one that said, 'libc is a "component"'?
Or are you trying to suggest that this wasn't in the context of the GPL?
--
Raul
Reply to: