Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry writes: > > > I meant linking as a shorthand for "incorporated as a section of a > > whole work". Although Kaffe is actually objecting to being > > distributed while "linked" to Eclipse. > > My point is that it has no clear basis for that objection without > violating DFSG #9. > > > I am talking about a CD that does not have bsd readline. To clarify, > > imagine the CD were made without access to bsd readline at all. Would > > that be allowed? > > Yes.
I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. The GPL specifically talks about distributing composite sections as "whole works". > > > We covered all this earlier, and there was no good explanation of why > > > Eclipse + Kaffe is bad but other GPL-incompatible packages + GPLed > > > Essential: yes packages are okay. For example: does any non-GPL > > > package that calls out (using only cross-platform options) to one of > > > the binaries in coreutils, diff, find, grep, gzip, etc violate the > > > GPL? > > > > Many of the utilities are covered by the exemption given by the FSF in > > the gpl-interpreter FAQ. > > The gpl-interpreter FAQ addresses the interpreted scripts, not > programs that use the utilities to operate. The FAQ addresses a GPL'd language and non-GPL'd scripts, which is exactly what we have here. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
