On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
Hello,
> Don't know which differences you see between "combining" and
> "aggregation", but I already explain 3-4 times why I think, that GPL not
> obstruct exepacking by closed source exepacker (aslo as it not prevents
> using closed source compiler).
To my shame, I haven't read this thread from the beginning - just
"accidently" Tom's note. So I also have missed the letter by "Mr. David
Turner of FSF" or a link to it.
I guess the problem lays in Section 3 of GPLv2, which discusses the
prerequisites in order to distribute the Program:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."
along with the "virus effect" clause 2b):
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
OK - _I_ personally understand an EXEPACKER as a "kind of delivery",
like InstallShield, ZIP, and the like. Your point of "Stacker" and
other on-the-fly (un-)compressing filesystems does not apply, because the
user but *not* the distributor chooses to place the GPL'ed program onto
it. The useage is _not_ restricted by GPL :-)
Therefore, Lucho, you may not distribute an aPack'ed GPL'ed program,
even if your aPack licenses permitts you to do so. Also, it is not the
license of the aPack stub, that prohibits the useage of aPack -- you may
link closed source object files into a GPL program, BTW -- but you
must ship all modules, tools, etc,pp, to re-built Program!!
(Well, there is a problem in DOS that no compiler is shipped with the
"OS" at all.) Hence, you would need to make aPack available to the people
you distribute the Program to.
Well, to rephrase myself: I do understand an Exepacker as a specific
"form of delivery" (The pharmacists use a nice word for it in German:
"Darreichungsform" -- Dict plainly translates it into "pharmaceutical
form" -- Regardless if you get your drug as pills, suppositories,
paint, spray, or drops - all that counts is how much of the primary
ingredient gets to the required point in your body.) So I also interprete
this problem:
a) The GPL does not ensure that the user can re-built a 100% copy of the
Program. You can't do it - most of time - when you run the built process
two times in a row.
b) An exepacker does not change the functionality of the Program.
--> So, if you distribute the sources to built the Program, the reciever
can re-built a functionally 100% identical Program.
If the "form of delivery" matters as well, how about ship an "unarchiver"
with your program (an un-aPack'er); that unarchives the exepack'ed program?
When the user decides to run the delivery package (or eats the wrapping
of his share of drugs (er - I refer to _legal_ medicine here!!)) it is
the user's choice, isn't it?
However -- who am I discussing this topic, when I'm refusing to ship a
pre-execompressed FreeCOM right away ;-)
Bye,
--
Steffen Kaiser
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
