Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that > > component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to count > > as "accompanying" when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff appears > > in Debian's main archive. I've argued that this is the interpretation > > that is most likely to fit RMS's intentions with the GPL. > Since the relevant packages would be Required+Essential (libc12) or > Standard (libc12-dev), mapping the current libc6/libc6-dev in i386, this > seems like it should meet that qualification. I have a feeling we're talking past each other. Do we agree that We can *not* have a Debian port with a GPL-incompatible libc, because the GPL forbids us to distribute GPL'ed binaries linked with a GPL-incompatible libc when the libc itself accompanies the binary. ? > > Um, sorry for being slow, but what is a "4-clause" BSD license? One > > that has positive as well as negative advertising clauses? Would such a > > license even be internally consistent? > 4 clause being the old BSD license which has an advertising clause as #3. > The revised BSD license only has 3 clauses. The BSD with advertising clause I can find at <http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license> has only three clauses. Paraphrased: 1. Keep the copyright statement when distributing source 2. Keep the copyright statement when distributing binaries 3. Negative advertising clause. What is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to? As far as I remember, a negative advertising clause is OK for GPL-compatibility, but a positive one creates problems. -- Henning Makholm "I, madam, am the Archchancellor! And I happen to run this University!"
