At 09:40 26-04-98 -0600, James LewisMoss wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:52:32 +0300 (IDT), Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >> My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the > >> components of a program being free, what with the large quantity > >> of programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? > > Shaya> Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute > Shaya> emacs linked or with the ability to link out of the box > Shaya> against Motif? > >Motif (and other 'normally distributed' libraries) on a system are an >exception to this rule else no glped program could be linked on a >system that uses it's standard libc (not gpled of course). Motif is >considered a standard part of many Unix installations, so linking with >Motif in that case is perfectly OK. (though of dubious legality on a >Linux installation actually (since Linux does not distribute Motif as >a standard part of the OS)).
What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality is it's own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to distribute a GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian? Essentially, I think that this part of the GPL is very vauge, and when comes down to real legal terms is on the shaky side. As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared libraries, "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone would really try to challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it would stand up. Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
