Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/01/11/07:28:45
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Christopher Croughton wrote:
> 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.
If you don't mind letting everyone else benefit from the patch, then
submit the necessary patch to DJ, and this problem is solved. But if
somebody *does* mind, if they want to have the patched tmpfile, large
parts of which were written by DJ Delorie, just for themselves, then I
have no sympathy for these people.
> 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.
You cannot change the copyright for the code you didn't write. If GPL
pisses you off that much, just rewrite the library functions that you
think are broken without using the original code, and live happily
ever after. (That is, until the day some large company steals your
code and copyrights it to prevent yourself from using it.)
> 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.
The next version of DJGPP will have `malloc' replaced by a version
written from scratch by DJ. However, I would like to point out, that
all those who yelled bloody murder at the BSD copyright did nothing to
change the situation. Even when DJ published the sources and testing
results of several alternative versions of his `malloc', I didn't hear
anybody reply with comments. I see more than a tidbit of double
standard here.
> It now seems that the DJGPP library is only 'free' in its broken
> state.
I think it is grossly inaccurate to say that DJGPP library is broken,
and I would like to hope that you didn't mean it. DJGPP v2 is used in
serious software for a long time, and if its library were broken, we
would hear complaints much earlier. There are always bugs, but if it
takes so long to bump into them, it surely does say something about
the obscurity of the function where the bug is.
But even if the above were true, and the library were indeed broken,
you don't have any right to demand anything else. DJGPP is a product
of volunteers who treat it like their hobby; you cannot tell people
how to run their hobbies, especially when you are using the fruits of
this hobby for free.
> 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.
I really hope that you didn't mean what you say here. DJGPP is free
to be used unchanged. If you want to change it, you have certain
additional rules to observe. Since the unchanged version is good
enough to compile industrial-strength software (like all the GNU
tools), IMHO there's not much base behind the accusation in
``mockery''. I'm certain this is not the first time applications have
to work around bugs in the library or in the underlying OS.
The world isn't made only of nice people, and unfortunately the nice
ones have to pay something because of this. This is life; anybody who
says otherwise, is selling something.
DJGPP cannot change the world, so it has to protect itself against the
not-so-nice, but IMHO it does make it a better place by letting you
have first-class development tools for free. It certainly scores more
in this respect than all those commercial compilers that people use.
I think you should be grateful for this. I know I am.
> I don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry sending me patches for
> something I've probably rewritten before they mail me.
The same line of reasoning would lead us to conclusion that DJGPP
should be released without sources. Or do you think it's okay for
others (like DJ) to withstand the flood of patches that you would like
to avoid?
> And I have objection to being forced to do /anything/ with my software on
> philosophical grounds.
Nobody forces you to use DJGPP. You can write your own library from
the ground up, and then be free to do anything you like with it.
- Raw text -