On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > 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"
>>>
>>
>> Even though "compiler" is listed
>> explicitly in the parentheses, the wording is clearly "major
>> components of the operating system" and I don't think VC++ is a
>> component of Windows.
>
> I disagree. The wording clearly considers compiler as a major component.
Certainly not *clearly*. It merely lists a compiler as an example what
*may* be a component of an operating system.
If I create an OS and someone else makes a compiler running on my OS,
that's not a component. And I'm not sure whether the fact that both
Windows and MSVC are MS products should make a difference, as long as
they're separated products.
> Why else would there be this clarifying, exemplifying list in the
> parentheses right the word major components?
Clarifying is not the same as exemplifying. Exemplifying means to
provide *examples*.
> So as far as GPLv2 is concerned compiler is a major component of the system.
No. Certainly not *any* compiler, is it? What about Salford Fortran?
So why MSVC++?
> And indeed without a compiler (or some such) it is not feasible to have a
> system.
Oh, since when? I think there were dozens of systems without compilers.
> Yes, M$ sells and distributes it separately but to me this
> (what and how Microsoft distributes things) does not define what a system
> is. Which of course begs the question who defines what a system is ;-)
Ultimately, a court does, that's clear. But its decision will be
driven mainly by common sense and experts' opinions.
>>> I think it is very un-ambiguous that "that component" refers to "major
>>> component" as the previous sentence defines it.
>>
>> The previous sentence talks about major components of operating system
>> (note the plural) and it is not at all clear what exactly, "that
>> component" refers to. "any such component" would be probably better.
>
> I'm not sure about the implications of the plural, if any. However I do not
> see what other component 'that' could refer to than those previously
> mentioned in the paragraph? It says something ('anything') is usually
> (normally) distributed with components and this something is given exemption
> from the source code distribution requirement if the component it usually is
> distributed with is not distributed.
So, if you distribute MSVC++ runtime library, do you or do you not
distribute MSVC++?
And precisely how many portions of MSVC++ you need to include to start
distributing MSVC++?
>
> The wording could have been better but still I do not see any real ambiquity
> there.
>
I do - see above.
>
>> Still, we can stick to the assumption that it's the MSVC++.
> Yes, let's stick to that.
>
>>
>>> To me *this* paragraph cannot be used to justify not allowing distributing
>>> GPLv2 code pre-linked with VC++ std libraries.
>>
>> It depends on whether you consider the MSVC++ runtime library as a
>> (separate) major component, which is not clear. If you do, then you
>> can't distribute it *along with* the binaries, as clearly stated by
>> the last sentence.
>>
> Indeed it depends on that. But I offer to you that we cannot regard
> MSVC++ runtime library as component because the license does not offer
> anything to suggest this interpretation.
That's not enough of a reason. The license also does not suggest the opposite.
> On the other hand it says
> (clearly or less clearly, depending on my/your point of view)
> that a compiler is a component
depending on your interpretation of the parenthesis, it says that a
compiler is/may be a component *of the operating system*. You can't
just skip the rest of the sentence - it's there. It's just GPL3 that
defines "Major Component" as a concept. Here, it's a component (with
small c) of something and that something is clearly stated to be an
operating system. Only components of operating systems qualify.
> and along with something is normally
> distributed, that something presumably being in someway related to
> the issue of running and/or compiling programs, otherwise there
> would have been no point in mentioning it in the text. In view
> of that I construe that a runtime library is that 'anything' referred
> in the language of the license.
>
yes, of course the rest *would be* true.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Maybe. From my point of view, it also lessens the restrictions.
> I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying that IMO v2 already
> allows what we are discussing here.
Well, since I'm effectively saying the opposite (or, more precisely, I
say that the wording does not evidently imply your interpretation), we
are still in disagreement.
--
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
