On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 04:50:42PM -0800, User1 wrote:
> The GPL does not prohibit reverse engineering of the GPL'd source code
> ("Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License; they are outside its scope."). One can thus read
> the DOSEMU source code and take notes about how it works, and have LGPL code
> based on the notes. I think Kevin did that; certain BOCHS' device drivers
> resemble DOSEMU in both organization and the names of variables.This is not called reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is reading the disassembled code of a non-free program. With free software we don't need reverser engineering, we can just read the source. This is one part of free software, being able to study how something works. > Alternatively, why not make our own license agreement that is identical to > LGPL except permits using GPL code? Then we'd only need to worry about the > possibility that DOSEMU's GPL license doesn't let us link with DOSEMU object > code, which is GPL. The assumption people are making is that anything that > uses GPL code, becomes GPL. That is not so; we will be linking with object > code that, itself, is GPL; that will make derrivative works of the source > that produces such object code GPL, but not plex86 itself. The LGPL already permits linking with everything. The GPL only with GPL-compatible licenses and the LGPL is compatible with the GPL (else we couldn't link a GPL'd program with glibc). I'm was not thinking that everything should be GPL, I only asked why plex86 is under the LGPL. If there is no reason to put plex86 under the LGPL, I would rather change it to the GPL. This because I don't want to see plex86 code being used in some proprietary program (vmware for example). > By the way doesn't anyone find this a bit odd: > > " 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions > of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will > be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to > address new problems or concerns." > > In my humble opinion, Why would anyone put their code under GPL or a later > version? Anyone making GPL code should do what DOSEMU did: demand GPL > version 2.0 (or any exact version). (The GPL says that "This General Public > License does not permit incorporating your program into > proprietary programs." I don't think that something that is LGPL is > "proprietary"; further more, the GPL says that anything that uses GPL must > have source code available, etc., but does it say that anything that uses > GPL code via linking, must itself be _GPL_? Can't it just have source code > available etc.?) Why would anyone not do so? The GPL will be in the same spirit and if the next version restrict certain things, you can still do it under the version of the GPL stated in the copyright. If it gives more permission to the user, the user gets those permission immediately. This will never be permitting linking with non-free code or so, because that isn't in the same spirit. Why would anyone want to do so? It makes it possible to change the license even if there are a lot of authors. If you don't state this in the copyright every author must release his work under the next version. Imagine this situation, a flaw is found in the GPL and the FSF releases a new version. With the "any later" clause you can easily change to that new version. Without it, it will take a lot of administation time. In very big projects like linux it is just impossible. I think this is one of the most misunderstood things in the free software community. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
