On 16:21 16/04/04, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) suggests the following clarification:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL.
For excessive clarification, add this:
"... (Your modifications, if they can stand on their own as a separate entity, may be released any way you like, but the combination of them with GPC may only be released under the terms of the GNU GPL.)"
``Separate entity'' is rather vague; do you mean that it can run standalone, or do you mean that it does not contain code from any GPL-covered software? Both have to be true before you can consider releasing it under any license other than GPL.
"*Your* modifications" means to me that they're really yours, i.e. don't contain code from any GPL-covered software or anything else for that matter.
Peter Gerwinski's solution is optimal; however, we must note that, as Waldek does, that modifications to the GPC distribution done by adding entirely new files (without code already contained in the GPC distro) can be released under a different license.
But if we're going to do that, we'd also have to note that whether or not you'd have to use a GPL-compatible license depends on whether or not your entirely-new-files link with the whole distro (in which case it HAS to be released under a GPL-compatible license), or is designed to be used separately (in which case it can be proprietary).
In my latest I wrote "When you modify a free program released under the GNU General Public License, e.g. the GNU Pascal compiler itself: [...]", so I think it's clear (*modifying* a free program; also, changes to GPC itself will always link to GPL code). But if deemed necessary, I can also address this issue specially.
Frank