Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 08:38:07AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Everything was going so well until you hit this point. In particular, the
> > statement "since [the X license] includes all permissions given in the GPL,
> > and
> > not . . . stricter conditions, we may conclude that third parties receive
> > full
> > GPL [license] with respect to the complete sources".
> >
> > First of all, they do not in fact receive a full GPL license; if that were
> > the
> > case, then they would not be able to make a binary-only distribution of the
> > X
> > code which is distributed as part of the package, which they can under the X
> > license (which you agreed applies to the X code).
>
> The license allows everything that the GPL requires.
Which would be what?
> You seem to be overlooking the part where the GPL states that the separately
> licensed software can be distributed under the original license without any
> of the GPLed protections as long it's being distributed by itself.
No, I am not overlooking that. But isn't it you who seems not to tire of
reminding
me that the provision of Section 2 to which you refer does not apply if you
actually
distribute the other work together with the GPL'd code?, which Debian does with
X.
You know, the part of the GPL which says:
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the
whole must be on the terms of this License . . . .
Well, when Debian ships Gnome, which links to X, Debian is distributing those
otherwise separate sections "as part of a whole which is a work based on"
Gnome, and
hence the GPL applies to it. Now, we are back at the question of how it
applies to
it . . .
Ciao,
Andreas
