Subject: Re: embedded systems [was Re: EROS license]
From: DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:30:04 -0400


> This is, as it has always been, the runtime system (DOS extender, DPMI
> host, etc) in DJGPP, right?  That was always part of the public
> license for those portions of DJGPP; by "dual licensing" you mean that
> the runtime can be distributed as a binary compiled from unmodified
> source with source pointer, or under GPL?

All true.

> That seems to me to not really address the issues here, since you
> presumably could add that as an exceptional clause in a single
> "DJPL".

That's what I've done, actually.  RMS even approved of the terms,
which surprised me (that was required for inclusion on the FSF
CD-ROMs).

> "Real" dual-licensing would involve you granting different rights to
> some users that are not available in a public license.

Once distributed, a recipient of such a binary would no longer have
the rights that the other users have, yes?  They do not have that code
under the original license.  Granted, the producer of that binary has
no rights not given to the public, but the recipient of that binary
now has different rights than the recipient of a gpl'd djgpp binary.