> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:03:04 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jeremy C. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: nl_NL@euro can't find catalog.
> Cc: bb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 15-Jan-2002 Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> >> > Can't blackbox use gettext and *.mo files like may other projects or
> >> > would that add too many dependencies?
> >>
> >> I honestly do not know why Brad chose catgets (foo.m) over gettext
> >> (foo.po). I am mailing him to ask.
> >
> > Maybe because catgets(3) is BSD licensed and comes by default on the BSD
> > systems that blackbox was developed on. gettext is GPL'd which by its
> > nature takes away some benefits of the BSD license.
Yes. Catgets is used probably because of license problems. IANAL,
but libintl got LGPL'd only recently (being GPL'd until that), and
that means that BB would have to be GPL'd too. I'm glad it was not,
because that made me try it.
> gcc is gpl'ed, should i not use it to compile blackbox?
Well, GPL hasn't been tried yet (not to my knowledge), but it's
pretty much possible that all the output of gcc (like the blackbox
binary you run) *is* covered by GPL.
> My point is not to start a license war, rather to point out that gpl
> tools do not affect the output. Just because I use gettext does not
> mean I must have a GPL licensed app.
That's not true. If the library your application depends on
(libintl) is GPL'd, you can only use it in GPL'd applications. If,
however, your application *doesn't* depend on that library (like
through --without-gettext or something), then you *might* be able to
prevent GPL infecting the app. As I said, IANAL.
> That is also not to say I intend on switching to gettext.
Good.
--
FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE
8:35AM up 2 days, 12:32, 17 users, load averages: 0.06, 0.04, 0.00
