Re: Binaries under GPL(2)

[Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru>]

30-Nov-03 22:30 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> Erm... you mean, without this exception compiler itself must be
>> placed under GPL?

> If the compiler is a separate work and doesn't link itself into the
> work, most likely not. However, if, for example, you were distributing
> a compiled perl program (which incorporates the perl interpreter into
> the final output) you'd need to be able to distribute perl itself
> under the terms of the GPL without this exception (assuming perl was
> actually part of the core operating system... which it isn't, in at
> least some cases.)

This is exactly the case of "incorportating things that cannot be
licensed under the GPL", isn't it?

> You'd have to define exactly which compiler you were talking about and
> exactly what it did and how it interacted with the code if you want me
> (or others) to go much further in explaining the interaction of the
> linking versus agregation clauses of the GPL and how the special
> exception plays a role in the interaction.

Any example illustrating your words:

  This [exception] only applies to major OS components, and doesn't
  have anything to do with incorporating things that cannot be
  licensed under the GPL. It just means that those major components
  (and only those major components) don't have to be licensed under
  the GPL in order for the binary to be distributed.

(especially the second part of the first sentence) would be fine.

Sasha