* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]: > Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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). You seem to impley that the FSF has permission from sun to apply the GPL to the relevant code. Otherwise would _this_ license not be allowed to be treated as under GPL, but under a compatible license. Do you have a proof for this permission? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C