I argued that coexistence of data, stub and and header is "mere aggregation", just like combining files in a ZIP file or in a diskette.
No, because you "modify" the GPL'ed Program prior distribution and not by-pack it.
ZIP also modifies the data it packs - same as the executable packer does.
That's why I assume that an un-aPack'er would solve the problem - you then introduce aPack as an archiver, which is entitled to by unarchived by the user.
But the kernel cannot be unpacked even if packed by UPX, and aPack can't unpack aPacked files.
Therefore, I assume that you have to make clear that the exepack'ed executable is not what is distributed to the user, but merely the delivery method.
What do you mean? Writing a license amendment?
I think it's time to end this discussion now, because as I already wrote, there may be major changes in aPack. This is not to say that the discussion was useless. It was very helpful to see the problems, and contrubuting to the changes I mean. If and when they happen, I'll let you all know. For now, let's just use UPX and hope that everything with aPack goes well. Wish good luck to Joergen, and stay tined! ;-)
Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion! 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
