🚀 go-pugleaf

barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) wrote:

barmar> There's an explicit exception in the GPL for OS libraries:
barmar> 
barmar>		 For an executable file, complete source code means
barmar>	      all the source code for all modules it contains; but, as
barmar>	      a special exception, it need not include source code for
barmar>	      modules which are standard libraries that accompany the
barmar>	      operating system on which the executable file runs.

So in article <930111.181024.7A8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> asks:

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

And in article <1itsemINN3v@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) responds

barmar> Good question.  The GPL doesn't specifically mention this
barmar> case.  However, this doesn't mean that MS has to give you the
barmar> source.  Rather, it means that no one can distribute a port of
barmar> GCC compiled with MS C, due to the following clause: "If you
barmar> cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
barmar> obligations under this License and any other pertinent
barmar> obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the
barmar> Program at all."

HOLD ON THERE!  Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that the
recent trend toward the unbundling of libraries has created a big
problem with the GPL, let's have a look at the relevant paragraph
of the GPL, IN FULL (Version 2, June 1992):

     The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
     for making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete
     source code means all the source code for all modules it
     contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus
     the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the
     executable.  However, as a special exception, the source code
     distributed need not include anything that is normally
     distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
     components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system
     on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
     accompanies the executable.

It seems to me that standard C libraries are part of "compiler, kernel,
and so on," so that you can still distribute executables linked
with an unbundled libc so long as you distribute your own source.

Don Bashford
bashford@scripps.edu