Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/02/21/08:54:58
> from the library. As an example, libc is under GPL but libgpp is under LGPL.
No. libc is not under GPL or LGPL; it is copyrighted by me with terms
that allow you to distribute it in a commercial application.
> Consequently, you can decide whether or not to release the source for any C
> programs you write using libc, but if you write C++ programs using libgpp
> you must release the source.
No. If you write C++ programs using libgpp, you must release objects
for your part and source for libgpp.
> I missed this post. I don't think much of the DOS/DPMI specific libc would
> be relevant under Windows.
None of it would. You have to start from scratch for Windows-specific
programs.
For dos programs under windows, it's just like regular dos.
> Well, we can't just steal their code. I think it's important to keep this
> in the spirit of DJGPP, i.e. (a) free and freely distributable, (b) no
> restrictions on distribution of applications built with it. The Cygnus
> licensing does not allow us to simply take useful parts of their code
> without LGPLing our tools, which would force users to distribute their
> source, which is a Bad Thing (IMHO).
Did you actually read their copyrights? Cygnus usually uses their own
commercial-ready libraries, because *their* customers want to ship
their products also.
- Raw text -