An executable compressor is no different than a compiler/linker. The exe compressor is a major component of the OS (at least for the purposes of FreeDOS) just like a compiler/linker. The major comonents do not have to provide source (it is the only source exemption in the GPL). Thus the source to the compressed executables stub is no more required than the source to the junk the compiler adds when building the uncompressed executable. Do you really want to bloat FreeDOS with the source to the .EXE headers, C startup code (not that we can provide that using Borland's compilers), the stack frame and any other generated source from the compilers? No and it isn't required by the GPL, that is why the exception exists.
My view is that (unless one of the copyright holders indicates otherwise), official FreeDOS releases should use whichever exe compressor is available that produces the smallest binaries that are still 8086 compatible and adds no other known technical incompatibilities. As far as I'm concerned, if one has a problem with this, then the individual (or Linux distribution, etc) may choose to rebuild the entire set with whatever free (or commercial) tool chain they feel appropriate. Also note, while the distributions generally use the binary as compiled by the maintainer (cause it is overall less trouble), this is not set in stone; the distributions may (and and some future point might) build the programs from source [possibly using a different tool chain] and so potentially not match the program as distributed by the maintainer. What executable compressor is used is a pointless discussion when identical binaries are not the concern [it's the ability to modify and improve by using the the source that is important after all]. As for the license change, sounds like a PITA, but I'm all for clearer and simpler licenses; however only the copyright holders can actually make this change. I (as far as I know) have no copyright on any FreeDOS related material so have no say. Please keep in mind, there are many parts to FreeDOS, so while the kernel and many of the utilities are GPL licensed, there is no requirement of a particular license to to be part of FreeDOS. Each different license does add to the headache of assembling the distributions though, and a program may be ommitted if the license is deemed inappropriate for FreeDOS by whomever assembles a given FreeDOS distribution. I.e shareware, use limited, or no source programs will probably not be included. What was the point of this thread again? any exe compressor the maintainer wants to use should be considered ok unless explicitly forbidden by law (ie commercial status of exe compressor is not worth considering unless the maintainer wants to make that consideration -- personally I only care about technical not financial merits); others can always make differently compressed binaries, that's why the source is there (to modify to suit your heart's desires). Of course this is only my view, I am not a lawyer, do not know copyright/legal issues for all countries, nor paid detailed attention to all aspects of this discussion ... blah ... Jeremy Davis ------------------------------------------------------- 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
