Peter- Can you please clarify the license of libcom32, from the samples directory in syslinux? I am attempting to create .c32 files that are not encumbered by the GPL, but the conio.c file states that is is covered by the GPL. So far, I have resisted linking with libcom32.a, but is it really your intent to license the library code under GPL, and not something more like the LGPL? Additionally, the Makefile in the samples directory also has a GPL header, suggesting that any derivative code of any of your samples is encumbered by the GPL- is that correct? thanks, jeff
Jeff Kalikstein wrote:> Peter- > > Can you please clarify the license of libcom32, from > the samples directory in syslinux? I am attempting to > create .c32 files that are not encumbered by the GPL, > but the conio.c file states that is is covered by the > GPL. So far, I have resisted linking with libcom32.a, > but is it really your intent to license the library > code under GPL, and not something more like the LGPL? >Actually, the intent was for libcom32 to be under the MIT license (used for the original version of X11; similar to the new BSD license.) There is a library built in the samples directory; that is not the "real" version of libcom32 (which is in the com32 directory in syslinux-2.12-pre1 and later.) Use the new one, that's the one that is supported going forward.> Additionally, the Makefile in the samples directory > also has a GPL header, suggesting that any derivative > code of any of your samples is encumbered by the GPL- > is that correct?That is true, although if presented with a reasonable request I may choose to waive the GPL, move it into the library (under the MIT license), or do something else. -hpa
Jeff Kalikstein wrote:> Peter- > > Can you please clarify the license of libcom32, from > the samples directory in syslinux? I am attempting to > create .c32 files that are not encumbered by the GPL, > but the conio.c file states that is is covered by the > GPL. So far, I have resisted linking with libcom32.a, > but is it really your intent to license the library > code under GPL, and not something more like the LGPL? > > > Additionally, the Makefile in the samples directory > also has a GPL header, suggesting that any derivative > code of any of your samples is encumbered by the GPL- > is that correct? >I should also add that I don't subscribe to the idiotic legal theory that "anything remotely looks like X is clearly a derivative work of X"; sample code is just that -- sample code intended for demonstation purposes. Now, there is some code in there (like chain.c) which really is more than sample code; I indend to move that into com32/modules soonish. -hpa
Jeff Kalikstein wrote:> After a quick look, that library looks great, thanks. > I imagine that it's some sort of sub/superset of > klibc...is there any documentation on the differences > (spefically, any additions, i.e. the ansi support you > recently mentioned). >Not yet... (contribution of documentation appreciated, but see the "hello" programs in the modules directory; they should move to a dedicated samples directory eventually.) And yes, it's a derivative of klibc. -hpa P.S. I just uploaded 2.12-pre6.