Re: XFree86 license difficulties

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net>
> On 3 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > > If that means what it appears to mean, how could the OS
> > > exemption have ever been meant to be useful at all?

> > It is meant to allow third-party distribution of binaries linked with
> > the C libraries of proprietary Unices.

> But if you link the binary with the C library of a proprietary Unix (and it's
> not dynamic linking), you are distributing the component with the executable

No I'm not. I can perfectly well give away a staically linked binary
without also giving a copy of the libc.a file is linked with. The fact
that *parts* of the library go into the binary cannot be used to
recover a libc.a that the recipient of my binary can use to recompile
from scratch. Those parts are not even easily identifyable in the binary.

-- 
Henning Makholm          "Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the
                       compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation
                   which is different from that which the user had in mind."