| 1 |
On 2004-02-27, John Nilsson <john@×××××××.nu> wrote: |
| 2 |
> It is not the same thing. If Xfree86 can be argued to be a standard |
| 3 |
> componet of a system Gentoo can COMPLY with the Xfree86 License AND be |
| 4 |
> compatible with the GPL for those applications linking wiht Xfree86. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Yes, but the point is it *can't* be argued sensibly. The argument put |
| 7 |
forward was (basically) "it makes the system more acceptable to end-users". |
| 8 |
Well, so would including "Microsoft Office". |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You *don't* need XFree86 to make a Linux-based operating system. Period. |
| 11 |
No question, no argument, no discussion. It is therefore *not* one of |
| 12 |
the "standard libraries that accompany the operating system" - the only |
| 13 |
get-out-of-jail-free card that the GPL allows you to play. It is an |
| 14 |
add-on to the core operating system for specific end-users - those that |
| 15 |
want a user interface. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You could build a distribution that didn't violate the GPL, but you |
| 18 |
might find that people wouldn't like it very much - there are lots of |
| 19 |
things that are GPL'd that you would no longer be able to distrbute with |
| 20 |
it. (Not everything, only those that link against X - like Gnome, gtk...) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I think these arguments have been done to death already... I'll shut up now. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
phil |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
change name before "@" to "phil" for email |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives