Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: > >> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> It is not clear to me that >>> standard library header files qualify as "associated interface >>> definition files". >> >> Wrong. Library header files that you link against are exactly what it >> covers. > > Then we will have to disagree on this point. When the restriction > supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing > on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I > have to think the "mere aggregation" clause dominates. The other > interpretation violates DFSG#9.
No, that's not right. You are thinking of this as a derived work case, and it's not. There is no claim here about derived works. I can say "you may distribute my binary if you pay me $100". I can say "you may distribute my binary but only if you pay John $100". I can say "you may distribute my binary, but only if you never eat artichokes again." I can say, "you may distribute my binary only if you distribute yours too." Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
