On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 02:38:46AM +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
> You can't make it part of your (proprietary-licensed) product; that
> was why, for example, Apple (Yeah, I'm referring to Steve & co. a lot
> here.) originally weren't going to ship their GCC with OSX, but just
> put it up for download. As it is now, it comes on a seperate CD, which
> is theoretically a seperate, free product. (IIRC, etc.) This is an
> Ugly Hack, and shaky legally. CF, from
> /usr/local/SmallEiffel/GNU_LICENSE:99 on my box;
>> "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
> thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
> under the terms of this License."
It's long been established that shipping a GPL'ed piece of software WITH
some other software does NOT bring that software under the GPL despite what
Micro$oft would like you to believe.
> This is only enforced; (from a few lines further down)
>> "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
> works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply
> to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But
> when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a
> work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on
> the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees
> extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless
> of who wrote it."
>>  Let's say, Quartz & Aqua.
>  Okay, GPl dosen't apply to them, as long as you don't distribute
> them with GPLed software.
Separate works, and separate packaging, are very different things
>  But we are distributing them with GPLed software. Now, how `based
> on' GCC (and groff, and Emacs) is a shrink-wraped OSX cardboard box
It's not based on GCC. Created with, certainly, but that's not a question at
> with several CDs inside? They're certainly inside the box. And a C
> compiler is a fairly fundamental tool on a Unix system, in
> fairndes. Hmm. Should quartz and Aqua be GPLed?
One of the world's largest proprietary Unix vendors, Sun Microsystems,
haven't shipped a C compiler as standard with their Unix systems for years.
You may regard a C compiler as a fundamental tool on a Unix system (as do I,
and I was well pissed off when Sun dropped the bundled compiler when they
brought out Solaris 2) but the operating system operates perfectly well
> Are the development tools really a seperate product from Mac OSX?
> Were your modications to those _F_ree tools really a seperate product
> from the thing as a whole? I don't actually know, and I'd be surprised
> if you did.
For what value of know ? I believe them to be completely separate, although
interdependent things. A compiler for MacOS X is pretty useless with MacOS
X, but the converse is not true.
> (This is why I hoped discussion of the GPL was off topic here. This is
> not productive :-)
If being productive was a touchstone, this'd become a much quieter list :-)
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!