[144] in Athena User Interface
Re: License crap.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Tibbetts)
Thu Jun 8 01:35:40 2000
Message-Id: <200006080535.BAA20617@hikari-no-ken.mit.edu>
To: tb@MIT.EDU (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
cc: Richard Tibbetts <tibbetts@MIT.EDU>, aui@MIT.EDU, tibbetts@MIT.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of "07 Jun 2000 19:08:15 EDT."
<u1hvgzl144g.fsf@pusey.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 01:35:35 -0400
From: Richard Tibbetts <tibbetts@MIT.EDU>
On 6/7 tb@MIT.EDU (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> If you distribute binaries, you must distribute complete source code.
>
> You must (3a):
>
> a. Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for
> software interchange; or,
>
> Complete. Not "all but this part of the library", but complete.
>
> The only exception is
>
> "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"
>
> And so you don't have to distribute libc.
This seems a bit odd. People frequently do not distribute source for
libraries that their software requires. For example, people will
distribute an RPM of some GNOME program or other, offering the source,
without offering the source to the various GNOME libraries that their
RPM depends upon. Are these people in violation of the GPL, or is it
somehow ok if everything involved is free software?
tibbetts
-*- http://www.mit.edu/~tibbetts -*- finger tibbetts@monk.mit.edu -*-
