Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)
On Feb 16, Andreas Pour wrote:
> It is relevant b/c, under your reading, to link libc with 'grep', you have
> to license libc under the GPL. So that means the libc distributed with
> Debian is a GPL libc, not an LGPL libc (ignoring for the moment that Debian
> does not in fact do the conversion). Since libc is under the GPL, you
> cannot link it to something like Apache, which is not licensed under the
> GPL and imposed additional requirements which the GPL does not impose.
GNU libc is licensed under the LGPL, not the GPL. Bzzt. You lose.
(To link GNU grep against GNU libc, the only requirement that applies
is that the sum "grep+libc" must be provided under terms no more
restrictive than the GPL. Incidentally, you can also link GNU libc
against the libc used by *BSD. Neither of these acts "relicenses"
libc; the linking and distributing only places the combined work
(grep+libc) under the GPL, not its constituent parts for ever and in
eternity).
I think you're trolling now...
Chris
--
=============================================================================
| Chris Lawrence | You have a computer. Do you have Linux? |
| <quango@watervalley.net> | http://www.linux-m68k.org/index.html |
| | |
| Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | This address has been spam-proofed. |
| University of Mississippi | All spam goes to your postmaster. |
=============================================================================
Reply to: