On Sep 11, 2004, at 00:29, Raul Miller wrote:
In that context, there are cases where Debian is distributing a program where some of the source is GPL licensed, and some of the source has more restrictive terms.
Let me repeat my more Debian-relevant point, that was somehow glossed over. This is copied verbatim from the message:
I wrote:
(a) Being in the same shared memory space is not a sane criterion for being a module contained in a program. For example, _everything_ runs in a shared address space on, e.g., Mac OS 9.x and earlier. The same applies to various embedded platforms (does it apply to uClinux, I wonder?) I propose that a requisite of BAR being a module contained in FOO is that FOO in some way use BAR. If we use this test, it has been stated that in this particular case the program does not ever make use of OpenSSL. Thus FOO in no way uses BAR.
And, to reiterate, GPL (3) defines complete source code for executables as "... all the source code for all modules it contains...." So if FOO doesn't contain BAR, then we aren't required by FOO's license to distribute BAR's source code.