it does not allow you to modify the stub. That's the main point.
If this wasn't required by the GPL, why would one want to do that? That stub is very short (between 133 and 340 bytes long) and is so heavily optimised that hardly anyone could that better!
the compressor is not the problem. It is the stub.
Yes, the more so as you know from Joergen's explanation, there is NO such thing as a source code of the aPack stub! Because aPack analyses the executable and CONTRUCTS an INDIVIDUAL stub for it!
The practical question for you, if you want to release some source code
and wish to choose a license is to answer the following:
1. Do I want to prevent others to derive closed-source applications from
my source code? If Yes:
a. do i want to prevent linkage with closed or non-GPL
compatible libraries/stubs that are not part of the compiler?
If Yes: GPL is a good choice
If No: LGPL is a good choice
If No: choose a simple license such as BSD or MIT/X11
Good point, but in which case should one opt to composing one of their own? Are all those licenses really written by lawyers? What if it's a simple one-page license as Tom suggests?
they are all listed here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
Thanks - what a long list!
IANAL
From what I've found (because I can't remember acronyms), this means "I am Not a Lawyer".
NAI ("Neither am I" ;-)
Lucho
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
