Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: >>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not >>> contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new >>> original work of authorship. > >>If that is the case, the license could claim that you must commit >>ritual suicide and the work would still be free. > > ???? > >>But I don't think it would be a good idea for Debian to depend on >>the work not being copyrightable when clearly Sun thinks it is. > > I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable. Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc code? I don't see how that's relevant. > Sorry. I was very unclear. > > SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not a work, derived from > GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not > GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first > definition, it is not a "work based on the GLIBC". It is simply SUN > RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any > compatible license. Because only "work, based" on GPL-licensed work > should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN. But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03