Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:12:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801090212.VAA17401@delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: 44699 AT ef DOT gc DOT maricopa DOT edu CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <9801081618.AA12696@gcef.gc.maricopa.edu> (44699 AT ef DOT gc DOT maricopa DOT edu) Subject: Re: patches GPL your software?!?!? rediculous! Precedence: bulk > 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 LWP 2.0 is part of the DJGPP distribution and includes its own sources. Thus, you've already met the full terms of the GPL, whether your source is specified as GPL or not. > 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. What about all that code *I* labored over? Don't *I* get a say in how it's used? I've been working on DJGPP for almost ten years now, and I've put a *lot* of labor into it. If you don't appreciate that enough to honor my copyright, DON'T USE DJGPP. However, I wish you wil use djgpp, because I want djgpp to be something that gives people the freedom to learn to program and have a great development environment without the disadvantages commercial compilers bring with them, and the more people that use it, the more likely djgpp is to reach that goal. > 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. The GPL states that if you use a GPL source, you *agree* to make your whole application GPL. That's a condition of using the GPL source in the first place. You don't have to choose to accept it; you can decline to use the GPL source. Copyrights don't have to be fair. The GPL is the strongest protection I can put on DJGPP (without killing djgpp, of course). While I always have the option of allowing exceptions, it's impossible to regain control after someone takes advantage of unprotected sources. In this case, it's a trivial thing to allow you to distribute your patch (you *did* submit it to us, didn't you?) and I have no problems with you doing so (as long as I have the patch, which I do). Consider someone who makes major changes to many sources, so that they function *way* different than DJGPP, but still claims he built with DJGPP. Now I get in trouble because people think DJGPP can do things that it can't do, and that person has modified *my* work (perhaps against my wishes) without letting anyone else benefit from it. Legally, there is no difference between the two cases - they differ in scope but not action. The GPL protects DJGPP against the second case, but to do so it must protect against the first case also. You can't put the genie back into the bottle. The GPL is a great bottle for DJGPP's genie. I plan on letting people distribute patches in source format, and as binaries as long as the patch sources are available, as long as they get the patches accepted for future djgpp versions. This makes sure that all work towards improving DJGPP can be shared by all. But the GPL gives me the authority to act in the best interests of DJGPP when others try to abuse it's sources.