Hi, a bit of clarification: For small projects, I do not care. So I place them into public domain. For bigger projects I prefer GPL because it protects the sources, keeping them OPEN and FREE. If I had to use another license, I would prefer a shorter one, as explained, and one with an "anti military/... use" clause. I do not think that using non-open exepackers or compilers does violate GPL.
So I just wanted to contribute my opinion, but if you ask me, we can just leave everything under the current license (some projects GPL, others with other free/open licenses or even public domain). If you are concerned about packer license, compress with the weaker open source variant of UPX. I myself use both full and weak UPX (there was no Linux UPX binary for my old glibc 2.1, so I had to use the open source UPX there, but I am using the full UPX under DOS). If you compress with aPack and even the aPack author is happy with that... well, why not? I hope we are all no lawyers. As soon as a bored lawyer shows up and complains, we can switch back to open UPX versions. And yes, I think GPL *is* better than PD for bigger projects. It avoids that comme*cial projects exploit the work of others without giving anything back. So for bigger projects: "Keep the source open or the binaries free, or both" licenses preferred. For example GPL. Eric. ------------------------------------------------------- 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-kernel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
