On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:40:00PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > Huh? Are you claiming that the OS exception doesn't allow linking against > > > GPL-incompatible system libraries?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:16:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > It's meaningless to ask that question without specifying who is doing > > the linking and who provided those libraries. The answer is different > > depending on who... On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:53:49PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > Microsoft creates a system library, MSVCRT (Microsoft Visual C runtime), > which is used by almost all binaries which run on Windows. It's GPL- > incompatible.[1] This case is largely irrelevant unless we'll distribute a version of emacs with MSVCRT in its depend tree. > John creates Emacs. > > I compile Emacs in VC, to run in Windows. The result is a binary which > uses an GPL-incompatible system C library. > > I believe the OS exception in the GPL allows me to distribute that binary, > but disallows Microsoft from distributing it along with Windows. > > You claim that linking against that library counts as "accompanies", which > would prohibit the above. In the context of that exception, a distinction has already been drawn to distinguish between stuff that comes with the system and the rest of the program. It's a mistake to claim that the exception applies to the rest of the license just because it uses some of the same words, not arranged the same way. > (On careful re-reading of the exception, I'm not completely sure whether > the exception allows this or not: it exempts me from needing to provide source > for those libraries, but I'm not sure if it exempts it from compatibility. > I'll probably ask the FSF, since this is a critical question.) It's the source code which needs to be licensed under the terms of the GPL -- since that exception sometimes excludes some system stuff from the source code, the excluded stuff doesn't need to be licensed under the terms of the GPL. > Regardless of that, if linking counts as "accompanies", this exception > would be a complete no-op, and you'd have to distribute the glibc source > along with every GPL application that links against glibc. A word used with conditions attached has a more specific meaning than the same word used without those conditions attached. -- Raul
