On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 12:07:17AM +0100, Andrew Collier wrote: > And the > GPL is flawed anyway - Si might assert that his code to interface to Win32 > instead of Linux is a differentiable work, in which case the GPL doesn't > need to cover it.
Not at all - the rules are very strict on this point. To be able to claim that, Si needs to distribute something that doesn't contain *any* of SimCoupe, so that you can then get the official SimCoupe and run them together to make the final product - and even then that's unlikely to be allowed because the result could be considered a derivative work (that's why the LGPL exist). > I like Open Source, but I don't like GPL. It is flawed, sometimes rather > loosely defined, and doesn't give the original programmer enough rights Whatever it is I don't think "loosely defined" could ever be applied to it. Also, the original programmer has any rights he pleases because he owns the copyright and can release a separate version of the work under a different licence (what he can't do of course is prevent the original version from being distributed under the GPL). > Personally I think that (under most circumstances) the programmer should be > allowed to distribute his own code under whatever terms he likes. No one forces programmers to apply one licence or another to their code. What are you on about? > The > sooner the world stops using the GPL and replaces it with a more sane > scheme, the better IMHO. Careful. Xz80 is distributed under the GPL, you know. imc
