[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Trolltech GPL violation?

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

Reply to: