> From GPL2: > "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 the last sentence forbids it. But maybe it depends whether > *that component* refers back to *anything* or *major components*. > I think that this allows it!
See: "<snip> need not include anything that is normally distributed in <snip> binary form <snip> with the <snip> compiler unless that [compiler] itself accompanies the executable" I think it is very un-ambiguous that "that component" refers to "major component" as the previous sentence defines it. To me *this* paragraph cannot be used to justify not allowing distributing GPLv2 code pre-linked with VC++ std libraries. It seems to me that one of the reason to add language related to this paragraph into GPLv3 was to clarify this. From that I conclude that the the clarified paragraph in v3 also clarifies the intention of the v2 in this respect. An other interesting discussion topic would be who gets to decide on the licensing disputes. As I understand it the license is an agreement between the original copyright holder and the users and as such is a binding agreement of which a court decision is ultimately needed if the dispute cannot be amicably resolved between the parties. br Kusti ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
