How this differs from exepackers? You may say: exepacker stub doesn't unpacks executable to disk. But in case of ZipMagic or Stacker you also get "on the fly" unpacking into memory. So, because exepacker isn't essential part of program, it may be counted as kind of SFX-archive. Thus, if you have rights to distribute archive and its SFX-stub (is it closed source or not), then you have rights to distribute anything inside this archive (until this "anything" allows own distribution).
Of course, but lawyers (or "GNU compilance experts") like Mr. David Turner of FSF disagree! :-(
PS: Lucho! Do you seen my other messages? Looks like you lost all messages from me - direct sendings are rejected, posts into groups you don't answer...
I haven't received anything personal from you since a long time (since the rejected mailer-daemon message, if you remember). I get your posts, but I get only less than a half of all postings (including mine and yours) from the kernel mailing list. Now the situation seems a little bit better, but I still lose many posts from the kernel mailing list, or they delay with many hours :(
Lucho
------------------------------------------------------- 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
