On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 01:55:33PM -0700, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: > Greetings Debian-legal, (I've just started subscribing to this list.) > > On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:42:21 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 04:56:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote: > > > If we follow this interpretation, this means that you can't distribute > > > an closed source OS with GPL tools. IMO, this was not the intention of > > > the GPL authors. > > > > Of course it was. The GPL is about advancing the cause of a wholly free > > operating system; giving free operating systems a competitive advantage > > over non-free operating systems that happen to provide free tools is > > precisely in line with the goals of the framers. > > > > And while you're free to doubt that this was the intent, this is > > nevertheless what the letter of the license encodes. > > Caveat, mere aggregation: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation > > What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two > modules into one program"? Sneakily not well-defined, thereby defeating all attempts at word games. > Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on > the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they > are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if > one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the > other program. When one of them depends on the other, it is difficult to call it "mere aggregation". I find a decent smoke test for aggregation to be: Can I take these two packages on the same CD and split them apart again, such that they are no longer aggregated, and still use them? For example, you can't (or at least couldn't, disregarding modern binary emulation tricks) realistically use a program linked against solaris libc without solaris libc. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature