>> I hope I did not talk about any compiler, that was not my intention. I was
>> just saying that this GPLv2 clearly states that a compiler can be a major
>> component of a system.
>>
>
>Yes, it can - for instance the unix and cc. But I don't think this
>applies to MSVC++ and Windows.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing but what is the reasoning why Windows / MSCV
is different from say Linux/gcc?
>If you consider the library not part of MSVC++, then it must be a
>separate "component", therefore explicitly disallowed to be
>distributed along ("...unless that component itself accompanies the
>executable").
It does not follow that some thing that is not a component is itself a
component.
The license stipulates that there can be something that "is normally distributed
(in either source or binary form) with the major components". And this
paragraph really tries to specify what that something and that this something
is exempt from the source code distribution. So it does not follow that it is
explicitly disallowed, on the contrary.
The contention is weather MSVC++ is a component of the
operating system and if the libraries are "something that is normally
distributed with the major components" and weather the libraries
are part of MSVC++ or not.
>I meant to say that I don't think you can cheat the GPL around by me
re
>breaking the "component" into parts (and possibly omitting some).
I had no intention to cheat, on the contrary, my intention is, if anything,
to support Free software with an interpretation of GPL that seem to
be in line with the stated goals of GPL creators. Not arguing to
make it more difficult for people to use Free software in real world
where we need to mix and mingle with non Free software.
>>And in my view, the intent was to allow linking to them, not
>>distributing them along (hence the last sentence).
Sorry now this confused me totally. I thought I was the one that
was advocating for allowing linking them and you were for distributing
them along unlinked?
Distributing them along would seem to be something that the
GPL allows: "mere aggregation of another work <snip> does not bring the
other work under the scope of this License."
Or maybe I was (intentionally ;-) miss interpreting your words?
>Well, GPLv2 does not define what "component" is in any way, so the
>implication "we cannot regard... because the license does not say it"
>is wrong.
Well, it gives two examples:kernerl and compiler so at least something
is defined of what a component of the operating system is.
>Yes, but I don't think MSVC++ is a component of an operating system.
>Back to the start.
Indeed, it depends on that. We have both stated our opposing views
and argument why we think it is / it isn't. I, of course, think that
I had some arguments that had at least some support in the text
of the license, whereas I found your arguments less compelling
and based less on the language of the agreement. You, no doubt, would
beg to differ.
> I'm saying that GPL license takes the view that the compiler that is used to
> build
> the program being licensed is a component of the operating system under which
> the program is to be executed.
>And I disagree. It doesn't say that.
It doesn't say what? It clearly says that compiler is a component of the
operating system,
are you disputing that? And if that is any compiler why would it be mentioned
at all in that clause?
So to me it is clear that the compiler is the compiler that is involved in the
making of the
program that is being licensed under GPL.
>> And I'm saying that the standard libraries
>> are that something the license refers to when it says 'normally distributed
>> with'.
>Yes, but only if the compiler was a component.
Yes, that is the bone of contention
cheers 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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
