Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > 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?
Your curt replies to detailed, reasoned arguments just leave me guessing as
to what you mean, which is why I will stop wasting my time and this thread.
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: