>You cannot link GPLed software with GPL-incompatible system libraries, if you
>distribute said software together with the system libraries. This has been
>known for age, and Sun used to distribute gcc on a separate CD back then.
>
>The exact quote from the GPL is (End of clause QPL 3) :
>
> 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.
You seem to ignore the fact that this is a restricting clause and not
an additive clause:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. 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.
Clearly "gcc" does not "contain" libc as a module and hence it does not fall
under the must ship as source requirement.
The fact that the sentence you quote includes "compiler, kernel, etc"
is irrelevant; that sentence only limits the sentence going before it
which says you must include source for
.... all the modules it /contains/, .... associated interface
files .... plus any /scripts/ ...
>Nope, since the System libraries of all linux systems are themselves
>GPL-compatible (this would be the GNU libc here), so there is no problem.
Your reading of the clause prohibits the shipping of *any* modules of which
source is not avaiable as part of a distribution containing GPL'ed software.
You keep on telling us about the "separate gcc CD"; it's true that we shipped
it but it was never because of licensing issues; it was only because of support;
anything we shipped on the Solaris CDs/DVD was considered supported; stuff
on the companion CD was not. And while I'm not a lawyer, I can't see the
distinction between gcc on a separate CD in the same box or on one of the
OS cds. (And perhaps business reasons too: the compiler folks may not
have wanted a free compiler pre-installed)
We shipped GPL'ed bash/less/gzip starting with Solaris 8 as part
of the OS proper so we've been shipping GPL'ed software as part of
Solaris for at least 5 years. That's before gcc was shipped on the
companion, as the earliest reference I can find of gcc on the companion
CD is May 2000.
So where you get the idea that we shipped gcc on a separate CD because of
license restrictions is a mystery to me. Perhaps you can enlighten us?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
