On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:27:37PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > (By the way, even the FSF uses a similar clause in the glibc license. The > glibc license is the usual pointer to the GPL plus this clause:
> "As a special exception, if you link this library with files > compiled with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does > not cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General > Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any > other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU > General Public License.") So... if you link glibc with files compiled by a NON-GNU compiler, the resulting binary *has to be* glibc ? That's, well, fucked, if you pardon my french. But it's not my code, so all I can do is sigh <wink wink, Moshe > ;-P > Evidently (cf. the URL above for an elaboration), the problem is that only > the copyright holder of the code can add this clause. Exactly. In this case, it's CNRI that dictates the licence, and they apparently are/were not convinced the license *isn't* compatible with the GPL, so they see no need to further muddle (or reduce the strength of) their licence. > Silly, not ?? ;-) Definately. -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
