Date:	Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:54:43 -0400
From:	dj (DJ Delorie)
Message-Id:	<199604252254.SAA09473@delorie.com>
To:	tomviper AT ix DOT netcom DOT com
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<317EAFE6.63CE@ix.netcom.com> (message from Tom Powell on Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:49:10 -0400)
Subject:	Re: GNU question.

> I am a little confused about the license involved with DJGPP. 

Why do so many people have a problem with this?  I've spent years
telling people that YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH YOUR OWN SOFTWARE.
Just because you used djgpp to compile it does not mean that you must
comply with the distribution terms of djgpp itself.

The only exception to this is that if you include another vendor's
libraries, such as GNU's libg++, you must then comply with thier
redistribution policy.  DJGPP's libraries (libc, libm) do not restrict
distribution in any way.

> Now I can release a program compiled with DJGPP and charge for it, but I 
> also have to make the source code available? Is this right?

No, you are wrong.  You may charge for your product, and you need not
include sources.

> How is this feasable for a comercial product?

Commercial products don't need to distribute their sources.

> Wouldn't this mean that Id has to release source for Quake?

No, Quake will not include sources unless Id decides (for their own
reasons) to include them.  If they redistribute djgpp as part of their
package, they will include sources for djgpp.

> Could someone clarify this for me?

If you can't figure out the simple text in the README.1ST, I'm afraid
I can't make it any simpler:

  DJGPP V2's copyright allows it to be used to produce commercial
  applications.  However, if you include code or libraries that are not
  part of djgpp (like gnu's libg++) then you must comply with their
  copyrights.  See Chapter 19 of the FAQ for more details.

- Raw text -