Re: Bug#709382: mksh: broken Built-Using handling
Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de> writes:
> Ah. Got it.
> GPLv2 §3 says:
> | control compilation and installation of the executable. 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.
> This clause is generally interpreted like this:
> If you link against something normally on the system (kernel, libc,
> compiler), but don’t put that (as upstream distributing precompiled
> binaries) into the same distribution as you program linked against it,
> it need not be GPL.
Debian can't use this exception anyway because of the last clause. Since
we *are* a distribution, all the components are considered to accompany
the executable.
> I’d suggest to ask the FSF (as licence author), Felix von Leitner (as
> dietlibc author – note I have not analysed eglibc and klibc on whether
> they also force the mksh-static binary to be GPL), and maybe d-legal
> whether the distribution of a binary statically linked against dietlibc
> (GPL), the toolchain (kernel headers and GCC startup files, normally
> with an exception clause) and the binary’s regular source code (GPL
> compatible) causes the other parts to become subject to GPLv2 §3 as
> “complete source code”.
debian-legal isn't really the correct venue. It's just a discussion list
of people who want to talk about legal issues. It has no formal role in
license review in the project and frequently arrives at conclusions that
the project then doesn't follow.
I hadn't thought about it from the angle of the GPL license on the source
code to the executable. I knew the exception for the libgcc license let
you basically do whatever you want as long as you built with GCC and
thought that would be sufficient, and didn't think about the implications
of the license on the binary requiring that the libgcc source be
available.
We probably need to have a broader discussion about this, but I think I'm
going to start with leader and see if Lucas has an opinion about where to
start with making decisions here. One option available to leader is to
ask for an opinion from external legal counsel.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: