gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (01/17/90)
In article <D_212Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >|Mere aggregation of another unrelated program with this program (or its >|derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring >|the other program under the scope of these terms. >> For heaven's sake, guys. The only real difference between gcc and anyone >> else's C compiler is that you don't have to pay for gcc and you get source. >This is not true, *IF* you include any library routines covered under the >GPL, and if linking with a library is not considered "Mere aggregation... >on a volume of storage". Various people associated with the FSF have stated >that linking is not "mere aggregation", therefore you can't use any GNU >libraries if you want to retain control over the distribution of your code. Note that followups are directed elseware since the copyleft debate is not relevant to i386. But, you probably don't need to post there either, just look back at the recent discussion to which Peter has already contributed quite a bit of noise. Again, I ask how do you distinguish linking from mere agragation? I am asking this in a legal sense, not the "mere oppinion" of "various people." Peter's statement is not even authoratative with respect to RMS and/or FSF. And, you probably do want to look into this issue carefully before you release any code. Gerry Gleason
derek@carroll1.cc.edu (Derek Inksetter) (01/17/90)
In article <108@zds-ux.UUCP> gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes: >In article <D_212Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >>|Mere aggregation of another unrelated program with this program (or its >>|derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring >>|the other program under the scope of these terms. > >>> For heaven's sake, guys. The only real difference between gcc and anyone >>> else's C compiler is that you don't have to pay for gcc and you get source. > >>This is not true, *IF* you include any library routines covered under the >>GPL, and if linking with a library is not considered "Mere aggregation... >>on a volume of storage". Various people associated with the FSF have stated >>that linking is not "mere aggregation", therefore you can't use any GNU >>libraries if you want to retain control over the distribution of your code. > And the following was posted to alt.sources recently: Article 1002 of alt.sources: Path: carroll1!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!bjaspan From: bjaspan@athena.mit.edu (Barr3y Jaspan) Newsgroups: alt.sources Subject: A Dynamic Object library for C Message-ID: <1990Jan16.014131.18734@athena.mit.edu> Date: 16 Jan 90 01:41:31 GMT Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system) Reply-To: bjaspan@athena.mit.edu (Barr3y Jaspan) Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 867 The following is a library that implements "dynamic objects" in C. A dynamic object is basically an array that resizes itself automatically as elements are added to it (thus freeing the programmer from having to deal with it). It is similar the GNU's opstack code, except my library isn't covered by the gnu license. The code is not complicated, and you could probably hit ten people with a rope on a crowded street that could have written it as well. However, I actually got around to doing it right and testing and documenting it. . . . This is really getting funny. Now, there are people rewriting libraries to avoid the GNU license. And look where it's coming from, too. derek -- .sig file closed for repairs--No thru traffic
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/17/90)
> Again, I ask how do you distinguish linking from mere agragation? I don't. RMS does. The whole business about distributing unlinked sources and copies of the library attests to that. > I am asking this in a legal sense, In a legal sense you just have "mere opinions" of "various people". There is no case law yet. > And, you probably do want to look into this issue carefully before you > release any code. Which is all I said, so why the (mild) flame? I'm curious. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"