| |||||||||||||
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legalSounds like co-distribution is perfectly legalPosted Nov 10, 2005 17:12 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal by hazelsct Parent article: Debian and Nexenta collide
But aren't you disproving your own point here? Since the GPL expressly allows distributing non-GPL software in the same product, it would seem to allow distribution of GPL software with CDDL libc. Not really. GPL allows "mere aggregation" of two programs on the same medium regardless of their license if they are not related (relevant part os quoted in previous post). Furthermore, Sun and other proprietary unices have been distributing GPL gcc with proprietary libc implementations for literally decades without infringing, or at least without infringement suits. Why the sudden storm in a teacup over distribution with free software? This is other question. Why FSF never sued Apple and/or Sun ? May be they had no money or they were not sure it's a good idea. Who knows. Copyright owner is not forced to sue anyone who violates copyright (that's not trademark). I agree that all this problem is quite silly and looks like storm in a teacup but this does not make it less real.
(Log in to post comments)
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 10, 2005 20:54 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]
Oh, come on now. Before there even was Linux (and thus the possibility to even build a fully GPL-compatible system), all GPLed software had to run on propietary systems, simply because there was nothing else to be had. Before Linux, glibc was a sad joke, and everything used the propietary libraries that came with the OS. Standard joke was that the first task with a new Sun was
So now there is Linux. And glibc works. And what I did before to our Suns will not be tolerated anymore, just because?! I just can't see the difference between shipping
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 11, 2005 4:46 UTC (Fri) by kimoto (subscriber, #5244) [Link] One rationale from Thomas Bushnell for why the funny wording is in the GPL2 (which was designed in the age of proprietary systems):The special exception allows you to ship, for example, emacs binaries linked against the proprietary HPUX libraries, provided HP distributes those libraries along with the major components of HPUX (that is, they cannot have unbundled them), and provided you are not shipping those libraries yourself. This is specifically designed to prevent HP from including an emacs binary which is linked against their libraries, shipping the whole thing as part of HPUX, and not providing the source for their libraries.
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 11, 2005 11:09 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Oh, come on now. Before there even was Linux (and thus the possibility to even build a fully GPL-compatible system), all GPLed software had to run on propietary systems, simply because there was nothing else to be had. Yes, but was GPLed software included with proprietary systems ? I know of one sample from that era: NEXTStep (later Mac OS X). All others shipped without any GPL components. If end-user does install GPL software on OS - this is one story (there are special exception in GPL), but if vendor ship GPLed component as part of base system... this is different story.
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 11, 2005 13:12 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] There sure were. DG-UX (Data General) used gcc as their stock compiler. The propietary (I believe source wasn't available) Pro toolset from Cygnus was built around gcc, gdb, binutils, etc. Not just some "shipping with" there, without those tools the rest made no sense at all. Besides, this is more than a bit strange, all around: DEC provided a tape with "extraofficial software" with their systems, Sun later shipped a CD with such stuff. I'm sure other Unix vendors did likewise. There are vendor sites giving GPLed stuff compiled and packed for their systems (including whatever parts of the libraries and such this requires). And now, when the same thing is being done with an OS shipped in source form, under a somewhat free license (much freer that original Solaris or Ultrix, in any case),it is bad?
Sounds like co-distribution is perfectly legal Posted Nov 13, 2005 20:28 UTC (Sun) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] The same thing with NextStep. GCC was the system compiler. They modified it to support ObjectiveC, and were forced to release the source code to the ObjectiveC front end, but not for the whole operating system.
|
|||||||||||||