On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:16:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote: > Again, it is more complicated. What if you have both a free and binary- > compatible proprietory version of the os? E.g., is a Windows program > linked against the Windows DLLs if users can run it with wine? What > about Linux binaries that can run on Solaris' emulation layer?
When Microsoft(tm) is distributing a GPL program along with Windows(tm), Wine doesn't enter into the equation. Microsoft is not allowed to package GNU Emacs in such a way that it's intended to link against their proprietary libraries. The existance of less clear cases (such as an OS that includes both GPL- compatible and GPL-incompatible binary-compatible library sets) doesn't change the above. > There is one big difference here: Word can not be considered a "major > component ... of the operating system". OpenSSL can. > There is no loophole to link against *any* proprietary code. As far as the GPL is concerned, OpenSSL is proprietary. You're searching for a loophole to allow Debian to distribute GPL binaries linked against the proprietary OpenSSL. > I think you'd better explain the intent of the GPL to them and ask why > they don't sue Sun or Apple. Their intent is clear. You're the one claiming that they should be suing Sun and Apple as a result, and you're the one claiming strange things about the GPL that nobody else agrees with, so the burden of asking them for clarification rests on you. I don't have time or interest to respond to everything. I'm not going to waste time arguing about the FSF's intent if you won't even ask them. -- Glenn Maynard
