Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
>> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Sorry. I was very unclear.
>> >
>> > SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not a work, derived from
>> > GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not
>> > GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first
>> > definition, it is not a "work based on the GLIBC". It is simply SUN
>> > RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any
>> > compatible license. Because only "work, based" on GPL-licensed work
>> > should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN.
>
>> But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code
>> derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL.
>> Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees
>> me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the
>> GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no
>> license to the code whatsoever).
>
> You seem to impley that the FSF has permission from sun to apply the
> GPL to the relevant code. Otherwise would _this_ license not be
> allowed to be treated as under GPL, but under a compatible license.
>
> Do you have a proof for this permission?
Well, Sun distributes glibc, doesn't it?
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
