Date:	Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:22:00 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Christopher Croughton <crough45 AT amc DOT de>
cc:	eldredge AT ap DOT net, djgpp AT delorie DOT com, dj AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE - GCC 2.7.2.1 Patched available for download
In-Reply-To:	<98Jan8.114115gmt.27796@internet01.amc.de>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980108131045.9262C-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Christopher Croughton wrote:

> 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?

Yes, a patched library becomes GPL, and your program becomes GPL with it. 
That is what DJ's COPYING file says.

The library is the only part of DJGPP that really matters here, btw, since
people don't usually put other DJGPP tools into their packages, so
patching the other tools should not be of concern.  Also note that some 
of the tools are GPL already, even if you don't change them, as they use 
some GNU code (e.g., DJTAR uses decompression code from Gunzip).

> Or do I 'only' have to distribute the sources to the patched modules, 
> or what? 

No, it's GPL, which means you have to make all the sources free, 
including yours.

>  (GPL or LGPL?)

DJ's license says GPL.  I think that the difference between the two is 
all but nil in the case of DJGPP, since LGPL mostly differs in the case 
where you do NOT change the library sources, and DJGPP already lets you 
off the hook in that case.  But I'm not a lawyer.

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

AFAIK, GPL prohibits this.  You need to distribute all of the sources, or 
make all of them easily available.

> 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.

The intent of the FAQ was to provide guidance for good conduct, not to be
a legal document.  As DJ once put it, ``people who violate the FAQ
guidelines, risk flaming, verbal abuse and boycott from the DJGPP
community, but not legal action.''

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

I don't know, but I certainly won't try.

- Raw text -