"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > And this means that GNU inetutils cannot be part of the GNU system? > Amazing.
Indeed, another strawmen. Of course a compilation consists of parts. Do you still have a clue what you are arguing about? > > Emacs was to a significant degreed developed by third parties, I > > guess it too isn't part of the GNU system. > > Is is a component of a compilation, but as such is a single entity > (with very few exceptions (c) FSF due to the practice of copyright > assignments) and has been developed mostly as a single entity. > However, there are subsystems (like calc) which have historically > been distributed as separate entities. So parts of Emacs can be > considered aggregated. There is no necessity for drawing a line > here, however, since copyright and license for the components in > distribution rest with FSF and the GPL. > > Copyright doesn't state if something is or isn't part of a operating > system. You were arguing against GNU systems being compilations. And that's an issue defined by copyright law. > > Nor is GCC, which is being developed by RedHat, and then we have > > the GNU C library which also is being developed by RedHat. > > It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation > (in the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the > executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library, > however, is licensed under the LGPL. > > The license and copyright have nothing to do with this. The GNU C > Library is part of the GNU system, doesn't matter if you do not like > it or not. Another straw man. Of course, a compilation has parts, and the C library was not a topic of discussion, anyway. > Looks like you again confused what this thread is supposed to be > about. You objected against GNU systems being a compilation, and > that concerns its copyright situation and nothing else. > > No, it doesn't. You can have a single entity with several copyright > holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to > you? But the "operating system" is not a single entity. You can take, for example, the ftp client and compile and use it under a different operating system. That's what the autoconf stuff is all about: portability. And something which is portable and maintainable as a separate entity is a component of a compilation. > > GCC isn't fully copyrighted by the FSF, neither are many > > projects, yet they are GNU projects, then there are non-GNU > > projects which are part of the GNU system. > > Which, for that reason, is mostly to be considered a compilation > with regard to the copyright situation. > > Nope, it isn't. Please read up on what a compilation is, and please > stop confusing compilations with the GNU system. Next thing we know > is that OpenBSD isn't _really_ a single entity; a operating system, > but a compilation of totally disjoint tools that Theo thought was nice > to publish. With regard to copyright law, of course it is a compilation. For example, it comes with gcc, without this putting the whole of OpenBSD under the GPL. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
