On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 09:04:55PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:22:05PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > Yeah. My own personal feeling is that we shouldn't be distributing > > > anything to which we need to apply this exception, unless it's > > > something that we have historically considered to be covered under > > > it. > > > > Huh? "unless that component itself accompanies the executable". Debian > > can't use the OS exception. (It seems that the OS exception is intended > > to allow people to use GPL programs on non-free systems, while not > > allowing non-free systems to include GPL programs directly.) > > For reference the full clause under discussion: > > However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need > not include anything that is normally distributed (in either > source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, > kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the > executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the > executable. > > If you want to argue that everything we distribute accompanies the > executable, I guess that's a possible argument, although that's a new > one to me. Doesn't really matter to me though... the net effect is > pretty much the same. If xfree86 is "normally distributed", then so is everything else in Debian. You can argue either way, but both ways lead to the same result (the clause doesn't apply), so there's little point in bothering. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature