hi.. i agree that catgets was probably used due to the availability and licensing of the day (though that has changed now). or maybe whomever added internationalization was more familiar with catgets. *shrug*
but ... > 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. ... this is complete and utter horse shit. any code that gcc itself puts into your resulting binarry is explicitly licensed with an exception so that your code does NOT need to be licensed under the GPL (or any other specific license for that matter). past that issue, it is no different than producing a MS Word document: just because you used software copyrighted by Microsoft doesn't mean they own the copyright on your literary works produced with those tools. > 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, of course, libintl is now lpgl'd and part of GNU's libc. > 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. s/*might*/will/ s/infecting/licensing of/ /me shakes head at license zealotry -- Aaron Seigo
