On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 02:45:29AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > If it was > > meant to include compiler-like tools, it would say "the compiler used to > > build the executable", but it clearly avoids that. > If this was true then the next sentence would not say this: > 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. > Note that it explicitly says 'compiler' here. This quite clearly > indicates that the previous sentence is intended to apply to > compilers, kernels, and so on - otherwise this would not be here. I think this is anything *but* clear, actually; mentioning compilers and kernels in a nested exception leaves a fair amount of legal ambiguity as to which bits the GPL is really claiming to be "source". So, as usual, the only sensible course of action is for Debian to sidestep this ambiguity. At any rate, I do agree that your interpretation is the *correct* one for the goals of the GPL. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature