Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/01/08/11:18:50
> > 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.
What?!?! You mean to tell me that the LWP 2.0 library that I wrote, that
patches __dpmi_int so that it works under Windows 95, is GPL'd because of
the patch? Rediculous. I would rather release buggy software (buggy
because it doesn't patch things) than have my code that I labored over
become GPL'd.
>
> 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.
Again, rediculous. IMO, you should only have to distribute the source to the
patch, and an explaination of where to download the rest of the library,
since it is the library that is GPL'd, not your code.
Josh
44699 AT ef DOT gc DOT maricopa DOT edu
- Raw text -