> FWIW, Debian's view is that the system library exception is not > useful in the case of open source application software running on an > open source OS.
Having gone through this for DJGPP, which is itself a system library... The FSF's view is that applications always require some system libraries to build, such as the C library. If such libraries are part of the operating system or its standard development package (that second phrase was added for djgpp ;) then the use of those libraries in a binary does not otherwise restrict the distribution of that binary under the binary's GPL. I.e. you have to have the OS and compiler to build it anyway, so you're going to have the library, so not distributing the library doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms. GLIBC has a special exception that it use as a shared object does not otherwise cause its GPL to apply to programs linked against it. I don't know for sure about other shared libraries, but one could argue that their expected distribution as shared objects implies that they intend for you to use them as part of the system, and not as part of a derived work. > Basically the exemption is intended to allow you to link your GPL > application against clearly GPL-incompatible libraries, like libc on > Solaris or HP-UX. Ah, but GPL3 *is* clearly GPL2-incompatible. A license is a license, free or otherwise. > In Debian's case we are distributing gaf (and other GPL apps) as part of > the distribution itself just like glibc, so the exception isn't useful. *We* aren't. *Debian* is. Debian is not the author, so the rules are different, and Debian is not creating a derived work anyway, they are creating a mere aggregate, so their distribution is not special that way. Otherwise, they would not be able to distribute the kernel (GPL2) and gcc (soon to be GPL3) at the same time. _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
