Re: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ]

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr&gt; wrote: Frankly, I'd love to be wrong, but I don't see how InstallShield falls into the "mere aggregation" clause. The problem is the clause: But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. If InstallShield is used, the XEmacs distribution is mutated into one of two forms: 1. The XEmacs distribution is repackaged and compressed into a "proprietary" format. While you might be able to call this "mere aggregation", I think this is stretching the point, as XEmacs is not in a form that is not easily separated from InstallShield. It can be done (using other, proprietary, tools), but it is not simple. 2. The XEmacs distribution is repackaged into a single, large executable, which also contains large parts from InstallShield. This is the most useful form (just run the executable to install XEmacs), but I have difficulty conceiving this as an "aggregation". Yes, there is a precedent in self-extracting executables, but this is more than just a self-extracting executable. I think of this as a "work as a whole". I really hope you're right. -- Darryl Okahata Internet: darrylo(a)sr.hp.com DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the little green men that have been following him all day.