From: Mark S. <mar...@ch...> - 2006-11-03 17:46:36
|
Thanks for the comments. I added a comment about GPL incompatibility to the MPL summary. MPL would need to be dual MPL/GPL. As GPL compatibility is a key goal. I haven't been able to find a copy of the GCC Runtime exception (minus the SDCC specific stuff). I was able to find the GCJ runtime license: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/libjava/LIBGCJ_LICENSE?view=markup After removing the libgcj specific language we get: This library is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License. Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination. As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. I think this looks pretty good. Unless there are any objections, I'll replace the GPL+LE text with this text. There is good reason to split hairs over this. We don't want to have to repeat this process! On Nov 3, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Borut Razem wrote: > Mark, thank you very much to start the process. > > Here are my comments: > > - in GPL+LE license "GNU ISO C++ Library" should be probably replaced > with "SDCC runtime library" > > I think that the GCC runtime exception more suits the SDCC needs > then > the GNU C++ library exception, because there are no C++ templates > in the > SDCC runtime libraries and because it is more general: > > --------- > As a special exception, if you link this library with files > compiled with SDCC to produce an executable, this does not cause > the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public > License. > This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why > the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public > License. > --------- > > - MPL license is not GPL compatible. At > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license- > list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses is > written: "... That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module > covered > by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to > use the > MPL for this reason." > > - There is an other option: dual license (probably GPL/BSD), but I > don't > see much benefit. > > I personally vote for GPL+LE which in my opinion best suits the sdcc > user and developer needs. > > Borut > > > Mark Swayne wrote: >> I've finally gotten around to putting up a page with information >> regarding unifying SDCC's library licensing. >> >> ... >> >> http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/release_wiki/index.php?page=Library >> +License+Selection >> >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, > security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your > job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > sdcc-devel mailing list > sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel |