On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 12:38:10AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:00:26PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:28:30PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > The specific wording of the GPL grants an exception for linking binaries > > > > against GPL-incompatible libraries that are part of the OS, *as long as* > > > > your GPL binary is not shipped together with your libraries. Debian > > > > does not make this distinction; unless we were to make a new gpl-non-ssl > > > > archive section, everything that we ship in main is part of a single OS > > > > and is shipped together. > > > Hmmm, I see the wording: > > > "unless that component [of the OS] itself accompanies the executable" > > > Surely if your interpretation of this is correct, the *BSD projects > > > could not redistribute GPL code linked against their C libraries, which > > > they currently do with GCC and more? > > The current generation of BSD system libraries are all licensed in a > > GPL-compatible manner (BSD license w/o advertising clause). > OK, bad example. Better examples are that Solaris ships with gzip, or > BSD/OS ships with gcc, emacs, and so on.... Aren't those GPL > violations? Are these actually shipped as part of the OS? I was told at one point that Sun shipped all of the GNU tools on a separate, add-on CD because of this clause of the GPL. If these packages are linked against proprietary libs and are being shipped as part of the OS, that would seem to be a GPL violation, yes. It may also be that the companies doing this have large legal teams who have determined it is not a license violation. But as far as we in Debian understand it, it is, so we can't afford to ship binaries in this configuration unless we have clear proof of this -- whether or not others out there might be doing it. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpXM42u6Wkwl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
