Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/01/08/21:12:50
> 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
LWP 2.0 is part of the DJGPP distribution and includes its own
sources. Thus, you've already met the full terms of the GPL, whether
your source is specified as GPL or not.
> 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.
What about all that code *I* labored over? Don't *I* get a say in how
it's used? I've been working on DJGPP for almost ten years now, and
I've put a *lot* of labor into it. If you don't appreciate that
enough to honor my copyright, DON'T USE DJGPP.
However, I wish you wil use djgpp, because I want djgpp to be
something that gives people the freedom to learn to program and have a
great development environment without the disadvantages commercial
compilers bring with them, and the more people that use it, the more
likely djgpp is to reach that goal.
> 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.
The GPL states that if you use a GPL source, you *agree* to make your
whole application GPL. That's a condition of using the GPL source in
the first place. You don't have to choose to accept it; you can
decline to use the GPL source. Copyrights don't have to be fair.
The GPL is the strongest protection I can put on DJGPP (without
killing djgpp, of course). While I always have the option of allowing
exceptions, it's impossible to regain control after someone takes
advantage of unprotected sources.
In this case, it's a trivial thing to allow you to distribute your
patch (you *did* submit it to us, didn't you?) and I have no problems
with you doing so (as long as I have the patch, which I do). Consider
someone who makes major changes to many sources, so that they function
*way* different than DJGPP, but still claims he built with DJGPP. Now
I get in trouble because people think DJGPP can do things that it
can't do, and that person has modified *my* work (perhaps against my
wishes) without letting anyone else benefit from it. Legally, there
is no difference between the two cases - they differ in scope but not
action. The GPL protects DJGPP against the second case, but to do so
it must protect against the first case also.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle. The GPL is a great
bottle for DJGPP's genie. I plan on letting people distribute patches
in source format, and as binaries as long as the patch sources are
available, as long as they get the patches accepted for future djgpp
versions. This makes sure that all work towards improving DJGPP can
be shared by all. But the GPL gives me the authority to act in the
best interests of DJGPP when others try to abuse it's sources.
- Raw text -