joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes: > As said, license compatibility needs to be discussed separately. If you like > to allow to publish binaries from GPLd programs for _any_ OS that does not > come with a GPLd "libc", you need to allow (*) to link _any_ GPLd program > against _any_ library that is not part of "the work" of the GPLd program. The > rules of the GPL end at "work" limit and neither libc nor libschily or libscg > are part of the "work" mkisofs. For this reason, there is no problem with the > fact that mkisofs links against libschily and libscg.
No we don't. We can just keep releasing Debian GNU/Linux which has a GPLed "libc". It is not our problem nor our concern if Schilli OS does not. Debian is legally only concerned with "Debian OS" and not "_any_ OS". > *) Any definition of "the work" that would include libraries that have been > developed independently from the GPLd work would be in violation with the > Copyright law anyway. > > As a hint: "the work mkisofs" is the plain files that can be found in the > sub-directory "mkisofs" in the cdrtools source tree. Other sub-directories in > this source tree colletion contain _other_ independent works. > > > You have to decide whether the GPL is a completely unusable license or whether > there is no problem with mkisofs..... The GPL is a completely unusable license, as defined by your terms. It is painfully strickt and viral to a fault. That's why we so love it. > > Jörg MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org