Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I will skip the lengthy enumeration of people who distribute binaries > without distributing the system header files -- distributors of whole > operating systems are relatively rare -- since the obvious retort is > that those distributors can take advantage of "unless that component > itself accompanies the executable".
Why is this a retort? It's the GPL's explicit permission that you can do this. That's the *intention* of the license. > Here again I think that it is DFSG-non-free and an improper > application of copyright for an application to demand that an > underlying library be made GPL compatible due merely to the > application's distribution next to the library, especially given the > mere aggregation language in section 2. It is not due *merely* to the application's distribution next to the library. It is also due to the fact that the application is *linked* with the library. If it were not linked to it, there would be no issue. Keep in mind that with static libraries, the binary application walks around with a *copy* of the library in it. Surely the complete source code for that binary includes, well, the *complete* source code for it. Keep in mind that changing the linking technology but preserving the same intent does not affect the operation of the license, especially given that even shared libraries still include parts of the library code into the resulting binary. Further discussion should be on debian-legal; it's increasingly off-topic here. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]