Python 2.0 in Debian (was: Re: [Python-Dev] PEPS, version control, release intervals)
Thomas Wouters
thomas@xs4all.net
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:14:17 +0100
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:27:37PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> (By the way, even the FSF uses a similar clause in the glibc license. The
> glibc license is the usual pointer to the GPL plus this clause:
> "As a special exception, if you link this library with files
> compiled with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does
> not cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General
> Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any
> other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU
> General Public License.")
So... if you link glibc with files compiled by a NON-GNU compiler, the
resulting binary *has to be* glibc ? That's, well, fucked, if you pardon my
french. But it's not my code, so all I can do is sigh <wink wink, Moshe > ;-P
> Evidently (cf. the URL above for an elaboration), the problem is that only
> the copyright holder of the code can add this clause.
Exactly. In this case, it's CNRI that dictates the licence, and they
apparently are/were not convinced the license *isn't* compatible with the
GPL, so they see no need to further muddle (or reduce the strength of) their
licence.
> Silly, not ?? ;-)
Definately.
--
Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!