From:	Christopher Croughton <crough45 AT amc DOT de>
Message-Id:	<98Jan8.114115gmt.27796@internet01.amc.de>
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE - GCC 2.7.2.1 Patched available for download
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date:	Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:38:19 +0000
Cc:	eldredge AT ap DOT net, djgpp AT delorie DOT com, dj AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.971221134048.8399G-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Dec 21, 97 12:41:22 pm
Mime-Version:	1.0

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> These are two different things.  If you change `printf', put it back
> into the library and use that library, it makes your changed DJGPP
> libc LGPL, AFAIK.  `djtar' is already GPL (look into its sources), but
> even if you use code from programs that don't specifically say they
> are GPL, what you get after changing it is GPL code.

Hmm.  Sounds odd to me.  What about patches?  If I apply the patches
to (say) the library (so that it works!) and use that, all of my program
comes under GPL?  Or do I 'only' have to distribute the sources to the 
patched modules, or what?  (GPL or LGPL?)

> In general, DJGPP's copyright is GPL with certain restrictions lifted,
> but the more lenient terms hold *only* if you do not change the DJGPP
> sources.  For example, you are entitled to distributed binaries
> without sources *if* you haven't changed the sources.

But can I distribute my binaries without my sources but including the
modified DJGPP sources?  Or a pointer to the modified stuff?

> Anyway, I'd suggest to ask DJ about these fine details.  The copyright
> is his, so he is the definitive authority on these issues.  The FAQ
> only describes the usual cases and its language isn't legalistic
> enough (that's intentional, btw).

I assume you mean that the FAQ language is deliberately non-legalistic so
that it doesn't interfere wit hthe real legal stuff.  That makes sense.

Incidentally, has the GPL/LGPL actually been tested in court yet?  In an
international (non-US) court as well?

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Chris C

- Raw text -