Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First of all, there is no distinction between static and dynamic > linkage from either Motif license or GPL point of view. (Well, > actually Motif has one restriction on distribution of statically > linked _shared_libraries_, for quite obvious reason - to prevent the > distribution of simple wrappers).
The GPL has a clause that says you can only distribute a binary you got from compiling the program if you can do so in a fashion that all third parties can be licensed to do so at no charge. Because dynamically linked motif doesn't give you a license to use the program unless you own a motif library, this is a distinction. > Second, GPL prohibits distribution of emacs Linux binaries linked > with Motif either way. (And if it allowed, emacs-?motif would go to > contrib, not non-free). If Motif were commonly distributed to debian linux users, we could put it in contrib. [Except, with the current Motif license we couldn't ship a motif package and an emacs package together. Then again, with the current Motif license we can't ship a motif package.] But, now that I think about it, we'd be hard pressed to even put it in non-free. The "commonly available" exception wouldn't really apply to emacs-smotif.deb. However, if "red-hat linux" were considered an operating system which was distinct from "debian linux", we could probably distribute an emacs-smotif.rpm for "red-hat", but that's getting way outside our normal scope of operations. The existence of the alien package only underlies this lack of distinction. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]