From: "Jeroen Dekkers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
> It's possible when we use clause 3 of the LGPL, and make plex86 licensed
> under the GPL. Why is plex86 actually under the LGPL and not under the
> GPL?
>
> Jeroen Dekkers
[snip]
The GPL does not prohibit reverse engineering of the GPL'd source code
("Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."). One can thus read
the DOSEMU source code and take notes about how it works, and have LGPL code
based on the notes. I think Kevin did that; certain BOCHS' device drivers
resemble DOSEMU in both organization and the names of variables.
Alternatively, why not make our own license agreement that is identical to
LGPL except permits using GPL code? Then we'd only need to worry about the
possibility that DOSEMU's GPL license doesn't let us link with DOSEMU object
code, which is GPL. The assumption people are making is that anything that
uses GPL code, becomes GPL. That is not so; we will be linking with object
code that, itself, is GPL; that will make derrivative works of the source
that produces such object code GPL, but not plex86 itself.
"If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works."
Note also this: "10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into
other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission."
---
By the way doesn't anyone find this a bit odd:
" 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns."
In my humble opinion, Why would anyone put their code under GPL or a later
version? Anyone making GPL code should do what DOSEMU did: demand GPL
version 2.0 (or any exact version). (The GPL says that "This General Public
License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs." I don't think that something that is LGPL is
"proprietary"; further more, the GPL says that anything that uses GPL must
have source code available, etc., but does it say that anything that uses
GPL code via linking, must itself be _GPL_? Can't it just have source code
available etc.?)
