Re: GPL and WINE licence compatible?
Richard Braakman <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:21:45PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>> You may distribute sources of derivative works of the work
>> provided that (1) (a) all source files of the original work that
>> have been modified, (b) all source files of the derivative work
>> that contain any party of the original work, and (c) all source
>> files of the derivative work that are necessary to compile, link
>> and run the derivative work without unresolved external calls and
>> with the same functionality of the original work (``Necessary
>> Sources'') carry a prominent notice explaining the nature and date
>> of the modification and/or creation. You are encouraged to make
>> the Necessary Sources available under this license in order to
>> further the development and acceptance of the work.
>Does this really say that if you change anything in the source, you
>have to put a "prominent notice" about it in ALL source files?
>(According to (c), even in your own source files.)
Bah. It does indeed appear to. (And then doesn't require you to make the
source available - amusingly pointless.)
It's not as if the Wine people are going to sue or anything, but I think
it would be best to just port to the sanely-licensed header files and be
done with it.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]