On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:52:39AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:56:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > > our users and the DFSG are equally important), and the code is (at > > > > > least) not GPL-incompatible (you should read the first paragraph after > > > > > section 2c of the GPL if you disagree). > > > > > > > > You've tried to make that argument before; go dig in the archives for > > > > the reasons why it's wrong. > > > > > > Actually, I haven't done such a thing. > > > > Oh, that was Steve Langasek. Anyway, the answer is in that same > > paragraph; it only applies "unless that component itself accompanies > > the executable" - clearly irrelevant to us. > > No, you're referring to section 3. I'm referring to section 2, > specifically,
Bah.
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
> it.
Same thing, different words. We can't use this clause because we _do_
distribute the whole.
> > Plus section 2 isn't the issue anyway, it's section 6 that makes it
> > incompatible.
>
> I don't think section 6 can make it incompatible. For reference:
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
> these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
> this License.
>
> The RPC code is not based on glibc; rather, glibc is based in part on
> the RPC code. Section 6 only applies to "the Program", or "any work
> based on the Program". The combined work of both the glibc and the RPC
> code is clearly affected by section 6 of the GPL, and since the RPC code
> is supposed to be MIT/X11 when part of a whole, it is not incompatible;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is essentially false; when part of a whole, it is[0] supposed to
be MIT/X11 plus one extra restriction not found in the GPL. Hence the
incompatibility when you want to distribute the combined work - like
we do.
[0] Assuming the apocryphal license change really occurred
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgp1GNXvqrv3n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
