Brett Parker <idu...@sommitrealweird.co.uk> writes:
> On 03 Mar 15:41, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:09:29PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> > > You are uninformed: libc on Linux is under LGPL and the LGPL is as
>> > > "incompatible" to GPL as the CDDL is "incomparible" to the GPL.
>> >
>> > Er?
>>
>> Well, it seems that you are uninfored....
>>
>> If you like to tell me that mkisofs cannot link against libschily because it
>> is
>> CDDL, mkisofs could not link against GNU libc either because it is LGPL.
>
> Err, GPL code can link with LGPL code - the LGPL *removes* restrictions
> from the GPL, and thus is a compatible licence, as has already been
> explained to you.
>
> Also, libc is (fairly much) a system library, and would therefore get
> through on that exemption anyways.
In case of Debian the system library exception can not be applied.
>> If you believe that GNU libc and mkisofs both together create a derived
>> work,
>> you would need to use the option from the LGPL to tranform the code into GPL.
>>
>> .....then you would never be able to have X on a Linux platform again as the
>> conversion from LGPL to GPL is irreversible and valid for the master copy of
>> a Distributor.
>
> I believe that you're using circular arguments with no relevance to the
> actual case in hand. libschily is *not* a system library and so does not
> come through with that exemption, and the CDDL and GPL are incompatible
> licences.
Even if libschilly is a system library, and lets sayit is for the
benefit of Joerg. The system library clause still can not be applied
in case of Debian.
> Ho hum,
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
