On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > 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. > > ?
1) I agree that we can't have a port with a GPL-incompatible libc. 2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and others). Part 2 is why I'm asking -legal. The actual honoring of advertisement requirements is a separate (though still important) issue. > > > 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. This is the 'revised BSD' license. > 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. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html has an example of the clause in question. I suppose that is the 'positive advertising' clause you're speaking of, since it requires advertisement of certain things, rather than denying it. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
pgpfaWStLHTs1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
