🚀 go-pugleaf

barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
> In article <1ijsrmINN8jr@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.ed
> u (Tim Smith) writes:
>>If the GPL does prevent someone from doing this with a DLL, then how are
>>people able to distribute ports of Emacs for proprietary operating
>>systems?
> 
> There's an explicit exception in the GPL for OS libraries:
> 
>     For an executable file, complete source code means all the source code for
>     all modules it contains; but, as a special exception, it need not include
>     source code for modules which are standard libraries that accompany the
>     operating system on which the executable file runs.

The Microsoft C libraries aren't supplied with the MS-DOS OS.  So does that
mean MS have to give me the source because someone's developed an MS C port
of GCC?

> As for the DLL question, I think this applies:
> 
>     These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
>     identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
>     and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>     themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>     sections when you distribute them as separate works.

What a horrendously woolly definition.  That should make sure no commercial
software company touches GPL software.  Are C library routines an independent
and separate work?  Who can tell.

I don't remember this stuff.  Is it from a new version of the GPL?


mathew