Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > > > > > > (*) The source code must be complete. > > > > Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the definition > > of what > > the complete source code is. This is provided in the second sentence of the > > ultimate para. in Section 3, which provides > > > > For an executable work, complete source code means all the > > source code for all modules it *contains*, plus any associated > > interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control > > compilation and installation of the executable. > > > > The key part being the reference to "all modules it *contains*", rather > > than all > > modules which may at run-time be linked to it. To substantiate the point, > > I again > > refer to my Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed. 1983) and > > look-up > > "contain", quoting the relevant definitions: > > > > (1) to have in it; hold; enclose or include. > ^^^^^^^ > > What about the Qt header files, which are included at compile time?
Right. And those are distributed in source form. I think you are taking this debate a bit out of context. Raul is trying to convince me why a statically linked kghostview is not OK but a statically linked ghostview on Solaris is. What you seem to be addressing here is the question of whether a KDE/Qt binary can satisfy the GPL at all, which was a whole other debate. To bring the point home, it is also true that proprietary libc header files are "enclosed" in a Solaris ghostview (or pick another GPL'd/proprietary libc program). > > (2) to have the capacity for holding. > > (I am not sure if I get all details of the english language correct, > but the kde exectuable has the capacity to "hold" the qt libs). I don't think you got this right -- this doesn't mean the theoretical capacity but the actual. Otherwise you could say "the sun contains Andreas" since theoretically it can, but that would not generally be considered a correct statement. Ciao, Andreas
