Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/01/08/12:04:22
"Joshua James Turpen" <44699 AT ef DOT gc DOT maricopa DOT edu> wrote:
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >
> > 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.
As I understand Eli, you are correct (assuming that the 'patch' was actually
a patched version of the original file containing the function).
Or as another example, if I release a program using the ANSI function
tmpfile, which is broken in the DJGPP library, and include a version
of the code which includes a patch SO THAT IT WORKS (by not working
DJGPP is not the ANSI-compliant system which it claims to be) then
that program is made GPL.
Quite what the status is of the source of my program I don't know.
I don't accept that either. In my case, I have no intrinsic objection
to releasing my sources, but I find that the GPL is less 'free' than I
want it. My sources use a modification of the BSD copyright[1] which
allows anyone to do anything with them, including using them to make
binaries without sources, as long as they keep my name and copyright
on the source files and state if they have been modified. [2]
Recently there was a lot of fuss about the malloc code since some people
don't like the BSD licence, because it wasn't as 'free' as the rest of
the DJGPP library. It now seems that the DJGPP library is only 'free'
in its broken state.
I really hope that this isn't true, and that this is a misunderstanding.
Otherwise it makes a mockery of the claim that DJGPP is 'free' from the
GPL restrictions, since it has to be patched in order to work correctly.
[3]
> 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.
Jos, you're being logical. Unfortunately the Real World(tm) and lawyers
are frequently not logical...
Chris C
[1] The GNU term 'copyleft' is semantically null. There is no such thing as
a 'left' to do something (analogous to a 'right' to do it).
[2] Actually, although I have no objection to releasing my sources eventually
I do object to being forced to release them prematurely. My software often
changes drastically from first implementation to proper release, and I'm
not going to run a big multi-user revision control system to track it. I
don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry sending me patches for something I've
probably rewritten before they mail me.
And I have objection to being forced to do /anything/ with my software on
philosophical grounds.
[3] The fact that the library has bugs in it is not a reflection on DJ
or the other maintainers, it is inevitable with software of that size.
CC
- Raw text -