[freedos-32-dev] Re: OSlib and fd32 license and code comment

[Luca A. <luc...@em...>]

Hi again,

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:38 +0800, Hanzac Chen wrote:
> BTW, I forgot to ask your permission of using the function of OSlib
> and fd32 in a application or device driver binary that is not GPLed.
I am afraid this is not possible. If you link oslib or FD/32 code in a
binary, the resulting binary is going to be GPLed (so, if you distribute
the binary you also have to distribute the source, for example).
Note that the license of oslib is GPL, not LGPL.


> Because sometime ago, we have talked about this kind of the freedom,
> and we hope that the application programs and device drivers that
> dynamically loaded and linked to the kernel's syscall library could be
> not GPLed. [Anyone can convince me that this is not a better way about
> the freedom or it is just not good. :-)]
This is (IMHO) not possible. Not only because of oslib but also because
of FD/32 (I think I still have a lot of code in there... And I am not
willing to relicense it). From the beginning of the project it was clear
that the project was going to be GPLed. So, drivers and native
applications must be GPLed.
Applications based on the DPMI interface are, of course, a different
thing and can be released under the license you want.

It is not a matter of freedom, it is a matter of respecting the authors.
I once explicitly said that I was not going to write a single line of
code if the project was not GPLed. I do not care about commercial
applications and similar stuff (of course, if people paid me I could
change my mind).

> Here is the exception clause, "
> /* As a special exception, if you use the FreeDOS-32 kernel system calls
>    prepared for the application and device driver to make a resulting executable
>    and it's loaded by the FreeDOS-32 kernel, it will not cause the resulting
>    executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License.  This
>    exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the
>    executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.  */
> "
I do not agree with this. GPL is GPL, and nothing else.

> Nils Labugt is using this exception clause, "
> /*
> ESTOPPEL:
>   I, Nils Labugt, find strong reason to believe that a copyright holder in
>   an operating system do not get any rights to applications that use its
>   Applications Programmable Interface trough copyright law, but to remove
>   any doubt, I hereby waiver any such rights. If any court should find
>   otherwise, then this notice should additionally count as an exception to
>   the GPL for such use of this file. Note that this waiver or license
>   modification only cover my and my successor' in interest rights, and not
>   those of other copyright holders of any work in which this file is
>   included. Any future copyright holder in this file, who do not want to be
>   bound by this waiver, should remove this notice.
> */
> "
Nils is free to believe this, and I respect his opinion. If he is the
copyright holder of all the source compiled and linked into a binary, he
can release it under the license he prefers. But if even only a single
file written by me and released under the GPL is linked, then you must
respect the GPL.


Of course, I am not going to sue anyone... I see this as an ethical
problem. I hope noone is going to steal my code just for this reason.


				Luca  
-- 
Proud to be "coglione"