Snes9xgp


nihil-00

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
110
Age
39
i was wondering if he used glibc or newlib.
i never really liked the fact that he never released his source.
and i was thinking that if he compiled snes9xgp against the gnu glibc, according to the GPL, he has to release the source of his project.

the same thing is obviously true for all the other projects.
including Alessandro's IDE.
 
This is exactly the reason why glibc is LGPL and not GPL. With GPL, the act of using a library forces you to release your app as GPL. With a LGPL library you can release your app under any licence you want as long as you only use the shared library and don't modify it.
 
woogal posted on Aug 3 2004 at 01:37 PM said:
This is exactly the reason why glibc is LGPL and not GPL. With GPL, the act of using a library forces you to release your app as GPL. With a LGPL library you can release your app under any licence you want as long as you only use the shared library and don't modify it.
Yes, woogal is absolutely right here. Most libs are under a "more free" license than GPL, because the authors don't want to force people into a specific license.
Which is basically what you just did, and i really dislike the way you want to get the source.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nihil-00 posted on Aug 3 2004 at 02:57 PM said:
I dislike people who believe in closed source.
Well, if you'd know me, you'd know i'm using open source for everything i'm doing. And I *do* think that open source is better than closed source - but my personal preference is by no means other people's command. If someone decides not to give away the source, it's his own right, and it's very close minded to dislike him because he believes in closed source.
If you are the open source freak you pretend to be, you should be more aware of the standard licenses used for open source software development.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i know about LGPL, i was just wrong about the type of licens gcc is in.
today i read on the internet an article about the differences between newlib and glibc.
i just trusted it about the fact that gcc was under the GPL.

however i think you slightly misunderstood my point.
altough i dislike the closed source mentality, i'm not going to try to force someone to release his source.
just, if someone infringes a license, i'm happy this forces them to release their sources to me.
 
nihil-00 posted on Aug 3 2004 at 05:10 PM said:
just, if someone infringes a license, i'm happy this forces them to release their sources to me.
That doesn't force people to release the source. They might as well stop the project and cease any work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
just, if someone infringes a license, i'm happy this forces them to release their sources to me.

you'd need two things to build up enough credibility to be able to force anything:
1. convincing reasons (function fingerprints and the like) that infringement happened
2. some proof that you're a copyright holder of glibc code or that you're appointed to act for someone who is

put up or shut up, thank you.
 
Back
Top