I think there's a problem here. If you recall the discussion with Dave Turner (FSF), he said:I heard that you were considering a proprietary executable compression scheme for FreeDOS. I'm just writing to let you know the licensing and freedom implications of this.
In the FSF terminology, aPack is "semi-free", not proprietary. SY2PACK is proprietary. But this doesn't change anything since both "semi-free" and proprietary software are GPL-incompatible.
Again: looks like here is misunderstanding. Exepacking is not "use
compression inside program" and, until exepacker license allows free
unpacking stubs (unarchiver) distribution, there shouldn't be any problem.
Or I misunderstand GPL and it prevents packing GPLed programs into archives
(by unfree programs or programs, with proprietary compression schemes) and
it prevents distribution GPLed programs together with unfree software
(whereas this unfree software isn't required for free executable and isn't
its essential part)?
Welcome back to our beloved "executable compression" discussion! ;-)
What follows is NOT my own opinion (you know my opinion, don't you?) - only GPL implications...
According to the GPL FAQ, if both modules are in the same executable, this means they are not "merely aggregated", so the non-GPL module must be GPL-compatible. This automatically bans not only executable compression, but also... self-extracting archives using GPL-incompatible software!!! So, if anyone is distributing such self-extracting archives or packed executables, they must immediately be removed!!! This includes of course Tom's HIMEM[64] and... my *illegal* "romd-bin.rar" - besides containing an *illegal* copy of our kernel binary packed with my registered copy of aPack (this means that I may distribute aPacked programs even for commercial purposes, unless they're GPL'd!), it also contains an *unauthorised* copy of a tiny proprietary command interpreter binary for which I can really face big trouble if its owner detects its presence there!). So, even if the aPack problem is solved (how? Try to guess! ;-) SY2PACK and self-extracting archives remain! But that's not all! Strictly speaking, distributing the kernel packed with UPX is *illegal* too, because UPX isn't really GPL, despite that Markus Franz Xaver Johannes Oberhumer says so. It uses his top-secret NRV compression library, which he doesn't have the right to include in it! So, we're using *illegal* software!!! The ony safe way to distribute a packed kernel is to get UPX 1.91 source code (it contains only the much worse UCL compression library), compile it, and use it to pack our kernel, so we're clean! Amen! ;-)
<< End of GPL implications >> << End of sin confession >>
Lucho
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
