Hi Ravi,
> I'm building a GM SCI0 sound driver from Rickard's patch mapping code and
> want to make sure I have the licensing correct before I release it. I've
> never separated out a piece of someone else's project before, so this is
> new to me.
>
> The driver is the combination of some framework code (to be released under
> the Lesser GPL) and a bastardized, translated midi.c. The result would need
> to be released under the standard GPL, copyrighted by Rickard, Christoph,
> and myself.
>
> Is that correct? I recall some discussion about whether or not the standard
> GPL allows dynamic linking with non-free software. Is it a problem that
> Sierra's interpreter is closed source?
It would probably be; linking to non-free software is permittet only if
the software in question is a system library, which Sierra SCI IMHO
isn't (from some point of view, it might be considered to be just that,
since it provides lots of services that DOS doesn't; however, it's not
part of the standard DOS distribution, and IIRC that's the point here).
The solution to this would be to explicitly allow linking against the
interpreter in addition to the GPL. You'll need permission of the original
authors to change the license, of course; you have mine now.
> How does the FreeSCI project want to
> be credited,
Just say where you got what from, who wrote it originally, and (roughly)
what you changed.
> and how should I handle redistribution of the original midi.c
> file?
You may distribute the resulting code in whatever form is convenient to
you (in accordance to the usual GPL/LGPL restrictions, of course).
llap,
Christoph
