> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:50:30PM -0400, Brett Smith wrote: > > Which is why the GPL leaves it up to the particular operating system in > > question. Note again: "the source code distributed need not include > > anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of > > the operating system *on which the executable runs*." (Emphasis mine, of > > course.) As a compiler is not typically distributed with Windows, no > > compiler -- be it Borland, or gcc, or whatever -- falls under this > > exception for Windows programs. > > But the clause also says that the compiler _is_ one of the major > components of the operating system. From the FSF's point of view, > it's obvious that something without a compiler is not an operating > system, because it can't compile any source to run :) > > I think it was worded specifically this way when Sun unbundled its > compiler. > > As you point out, it does say "on which the executable runs", which > makes me conclude that the compiler in question must be the one > the program was compiled with. (I'd also make a case that the > C library is a major component of the operating system, even if > it's not specifically listed here.) > > However... this is not an ordinary executable. FreeDOS _is_ an > operating system! It doesn't run on anything else. So I think > the escape clause is unusable here.
D'oh! I composed a much lengthier email stating almost exactly what you said. In any event, I'd like to add that it is a problem for embedded OS's (like Palm OS) as well. In those cases, there probably aren't any compilers that run on the OS. Everything is cross compiled. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
