Date:	Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Doug Kaufman <dkaufman AT rahul DOT net>
To:	watt-32 AT yahoogroups DOT com
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [watt-32] Re: License status of WATT-32
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010709192728.9759C-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.BSF.4.21.0107091222480.37273-100000@yellow.rahul.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Erick Engelke wrote:
> 
> > I have not made the software GPL or BSD licensed, because I don't believe
> > ...
> > So I don't mind if you use my libraries, use them to your heart's content.
> > But please don't try to the sell the libraries as a TCP toolkit to other
> > developers.
> 
> Unfortunately, this means that ports of GNU programs (such as Wget) 
> cannot be linked with WATTCP and redistributed, since that violates the 
> GPL.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with not believing in GPL, but please realize that 
> your disbelief prevents well-meaning people from make Wget and other useful 
> programs available.

I have gone back and read the GPL several times. As I read it, you
should be able to link a GPL'd work with a non-GPL'd library, as long
as the source code of that library can be distributed with the binary.
I don't see where all linked libraries are required to fall under the
GPL. It appears that Erick is giving us permission to distribute the
source code on ftp sites and on the Simtel CD. The binary could not be
distributed as part of a commercial toolkit distribution, since the
source code could then not be distributed with it. Some of the GPL
is not quite clear as to its application, especially the section on
distribution of object code. The GPL must cover the "whole work" when
source code is distributed, but doesn't cover "bundled" applications.
The section on distribution of object code requires the distribution
of the source code of modules, but does not specifically state that
those modules must be distributed under the GPL.

Perhaps I am interpreting too much, but I think that if linked
libraries needed to be distributed under GPL, it would have clearly
stated that. The license appears to have been written carefully, with
ambiguities open to interpretation placed there intentionally.
                            Doug

__ 
Doug Kaufman
Internet: dkaufman AT rahul DOT net

- Raw text -