Cheapest way to Unix program developement
gerry at zds-ux.UUCP
Wed Jan 17 06:38:56 AEST 1990
In article <D_212Fxds13 at ficc.uu.net> peter at 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.
More information about the Comp.unix.i386