On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 08:38:07AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > > > Everything was going so well until you hit this point. In particular, the > > > statement "since [the X license] includes all permissions given in the > > > GPL, and > > > not . . . stricter conditions, we may conclude that third parties receive > > > full > > > GPL [license] with respect to the complete sources". > > > > > > First of all, they do not in fact receive a full GPL license; if that > > > were the > > > case, then they would not be able to make a binary-only distribution of > > > the X > > > code which is distributed as part of the package, which they can under > > > the X > > > license (which you agreed applies to the X code).
Raul Miller wrote: > > The license allows everything that the GPL requires. On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 10:20:01AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > Which would be what? Unless you're concerned about some specific issue, I'd have to recommend that you read the GPL. > > You seem to be overlooking the part where the GPL states that the separately > > licensed software can be distributed under the original license without any > > of the GPLed protections as long it's being distributed by itself. > > No, I am not overlooking that. But isn't it you who seems not to tire of > reminding > me that the provision of Section 2 to which you refer does not apply if you > actually > distribute the other work together with the GPL'd code?, which Debian does > with X. Er.. for most provisions of Section 2, it's not "if ... with" but "when ... without". However, if you're talking about the exception which lets GPLed software be distributed to run on proprietary operating systems, then yes, that might be me. [Where you have to link with a proprietary libc, or whatever.] But that particular exception doesn't make any sense in this context: X is not an operating system, and it's not proprietary. -- Raul
