🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BASHFORD.93Jan12124048@zippy.scripps.edu> bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:
>     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.

I read that paragraph, and tried real hard to interpret it such that it
referred to MS C libraries.  But I couldn't figure out how to do it. 

In the case of a PC, "the operating system on which the executable runs" is
MS-DOS, Windows, or OS/2.  In none of these cases are the standard C
libraries "normally distributed with the major components of the OS".  On
the contrary, the C libraries are normally distributed with third-party
compilers.  And the library normally "accompanies the executable", by
virtue of being linked in.

Note also that "unless" clause.  Even if the library *is* normally
distributed with the OS, by linking it into the executable that you
distribute you are apparently obliged to include its source code!

I'm not sure if this interpretation was intended, though.  It effectively
means that if you're going to distribute an executable, it must either be
linked dynamically or you must be able to distribute source to all the
libraries you link with.  Since I haven't heard of the FSF bringing action
against any of the many people who distribute executables linked with
vendor libraries, I think that last clause isn't being enforced (or I'm
totally misunderstanding the language).

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar