Message-ID: <34B52EDE.A3E8B9A5@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 13:54:06 -0600
From: Kurt Wall <kwall AT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: patches GPL your software?!?!? rediculous!
References: <9801081618 DOT AA12696 AT gcef DOT gc DOT maricopa DOT edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Joshua James Turpen wrote:
> 
> > > 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?
> >
> > 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.

A self-serving reading of the GPL does not release from its obligations;
if
you use and adapt the code, your additions are GPL'd.  Period.  A hell
of a
lot of people have labored a hell of a lot more than you and don't piss
and 
moan about the GPL.  If you don't want to GPL your code, don't use it
yourself.
Frankly, I think it is pretty shallow: you want all the benefit of GPL'd
code without any of the responsibility.


> 
> >
> > The library is the only part of DJGPP that really matters here, btw, since
> > people don't usually put other DJGPP tools into their packages, so
> > patching the other tools should not be of concern.  Also note that some
> > of the tools are GPL already, even if you don't change them, as they use
> > some GNU code (e.g., DJTAR uses decompression code from Gunzip).
> >
> > > Or do I 'only' have to distribute the sources to the patched modules,
> > > or what?
> >
> > No, it's GPL, which means you have to make all the sources free,
> > including yours.
> 
> 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.

Well, your opinion is wrong.

> 
> Josh
> 44699 AT ef DOT gc DOT maricopa DOT edu

Kurt