Re: Python 2.0 in Debian (was: Re: [Python-Dev] PEPS, version control, release intervals)

[Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:27:37PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:

> (By the way, even the FSF uses a similar clause in the glibc license. The
> glibc license is the usual pointer to the GPL plus this clause:

>   "As a special exception, if you link this library with files
>    compiled with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does
>    not cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General
>    Public License.  This exception does not however invalidate any
>    other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU
>    General Public License.")

So... if you link glibc with files compiled by a NON-GNU compiler, the
resulting binary *has to be* glibc ? That's, well, fucked, if you pardon my
french. But it's not my code, so all I can do is sigh <wink wink, Moshe > ;-P

> Evidently (cf. the URL above for an elaboration), the problem is that only
> the copyright holder of the code can add this clause.

Exactly. In this case, it's CNRI that dictates the licence, and they
apparently are/were not convinced the license *isn't* compatible with the
GPL, so they see no need to further muddle (or reduce the strength of) their
licence.

> Silly, not ?? ;-)

Definately.

-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!