Arnt Gulbrandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > that's almost the exact opposite of what the GPL says. > > > > from clause 3 of the GPL: > > I've read clause three, thank you. I'll upper-case the bit you > must have missed: > > > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the > > work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, > > complete source code means all the source code for all modules > > it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, > > plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation > > of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source > > code distributed need not include anything that is normally > > distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major > > components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system > > on which the executable runs, UNLESS THAT COMPONENT ITSELF > > ACCOMPANIES THE EXECUTABLE. > > > > the last sentence, from "However, as a special exception" is particularly > > relevant here. > > It's clear that (e.g.) libc accompanies (e.g.) /bin/ls in Debian: They
Considering the size of the .deb for fileutils, I think you are mistaken. Otherwise .deb's are packed extremely well :-) In case you haven't caught the point yet, does accompany not cater for whats distributed on some media or other, but whats distributed as a whole. Just like you (normally) don't accompany people in other cars, but (again normally) those in the car you're driving. > are both in main, and the package maintainer makes sure you get libc > when you get /bin/ls. If you also think that libc is a "section of" > (see section two) /bin/ls and so on, then the conclusion is clear: > You're in contravention of the GPL as you read it. Grasping for straws? -- /Wegge