Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
Only if the result can "be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of" the GPL. > 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. If you think the GPL is wierd, you should take a look at the Motif license for Linux. > 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. FUD. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
