From: Christopher Croughton Message-Id: <98Jan8.114115gmt.27796@internet01.amc.de> Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE - GCC 2.7.2.1 Patched available for download To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:38:19 +0000 Cc: eldredge AT ap DOT net, djgpp AT delorie DOT com, dj AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: from "Eli Zaretskii" at Dec 21, 97 12:41:22 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk 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? Or do I 'only' have to distribute the sources to the patched modules, or what? (GPL or LGPL?) > In general, DJGPP's copyright is GPL with certain restrictions lifted, > but the more lenient terms hold *only* if you do not change the DJGPP > sources. For example, you are entitled to distributed binaries > without sources *if* you haven't changed the sources. But can I distribute my binaries without my sources but including the modified DJGPP sources? Or a pointer to the modified stuff? > Anyway, I'd suggest to ask DJ about these fine details. The copyright > is his, so he is the definitive authority on these issues. The FAQ > only describes the usual cases and its language isn't legalistic > enough (that's intentional, btw). I assume you mean that the FAQ language is deliberately non-legalistic so that it doesn't interfere wit hthe real legal stuff. That makes sense. Incidentally, has the GPL/LGPL actually been tested in court yet? In an international (non-US) court as well? Is there a lawyer in the house? Chris C