[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes: > 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.
I propose that you read the license coming with the development version of Apple's libraries. Of course you will have to heed Apple's conditions for distributing their code. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
