Re: GPL question

[Richard Tobin]

In article <85zm43wmct.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup  <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

>> So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute
>> distribution of a derivative work?  If so - to go back to my earlier
>> example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution
>> of a derivative work of MacOS X?

>In order not to have to rely on a particular interpretation of this
>question, the GPL states in section 3:
>
>    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.

I think you're misunderstanding my question.  Aquamacs (as far as I
know) contains code to access Apple's graphical interface
libraries. As far as I know, there is no other implementation of
these.  So according to your theory, when a user runs Aquamacs they
create a derivative work of MacOS X.  If I required the FSF's
permission to distribute a work that links with readline (ignoring
that there is now an alternative implementation), surely I require
Apple's permission to distribute a program that links with their
libraries.  This does not seem like a desirable situation.

-- Richard

-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.