In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute >> distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier >> example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution >> of a derivative work of MacOS X? >In order not to have to rely on a particular interpretation of this >question, the GPL states in section 3: > > However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need > not include anything that is normally distributed (in either > source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, > kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable > runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. I think you're misunderstanding my question. Aquamacs (as far as I know) contains code to access Apple's graphical interface libraries. As far as I know, there is no other implementation of these. So according to your theory, when a user runs Aquamacs they create a derivative work of MacOS X. If I required the FSF's permission to distribute a work that links with readline (ignoring that there is now an alternative implementation), surely I require Apple's permission to distribute a program that links with their libraries. This does not seem like a desirable situation. -- Richard -- "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
