Re: FreeDOS and GPL-compatibility

[Walter Landry <landry@physics.utah.edu>]

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:50:30PM -0400, Brett Smith wrote:
> > Which is why the GPL leaves it up to the particular operating system in
> > question. Note again: "the source code distributed need not include
> > anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of
> > the operating system *on which the executable runs*." (Emphasis mine, of
> > course.) As a compiler is not typically distributed with Windows, no
> > compiler -- be it Borland, or gcc, or whatever -- falls under this
> > exception for Windows programs.
> 
> But the clause also says that the compiler _is_ one of the major
> components of the operating system.  From the FSF's point of view,
> it's obvious that something without a compiler is not an operating
> system, because it can't compile any source to run :)
> 
> I think it was worded specifically this way when Sun unbundled its
> compiler.
> 
> As you point out, it does say "on which the executable runs", which
> makes me conclude that the compiler in question must be the one
> the program was compiled with.  (I'd also make a case that the
> C library is a major component of the operating system, even if
> it's not specifically listed here.)
> 
> However... this is not an ordinary executable.  FreeDOS _is_ an
> operating system!  It doesn't run on anything else.  So I think
> the escape clause is unusable here.

D'oh!  I composed a much lengthier email stating almost exactly what
you said.  In any event, I'd like to add that it is a problem for
embedded OS's (like Palm OS) as well.  In those cases, there probably
aren't any compilers that run on the OS.  Everything is cross compiled.

Regards,
Walter Landry
landry@physics.utah.edu