Re: [Sdcc-user] GPL+LE/LP pic/pic16 header Interest?

[Alain M. <al...@po...>]

Ok, but what is LE? Google could not help, nor even SDCC's site...

Could you send a link (or the licence)?

Thanks,
Alain

Em 31-03-2011 02:07, Borut Razem escreveu:
> We already went through this dicussion for sdcc libraries and the
> decision was GPL+LE. So please serch&  replace GPL with GPL+LE in my
> previous posts ;-)
>
> Borut
>
>
> On 03/31/2011 12:58 AM, Alain Mouette wrote:
>> DANGER... DANGER...
>> I have been silently following this and then it truck me!!!
>>
>> Libraries and headers thar generate at least ONE byte  cannot be GPL!!!
>> Some people use compilers to create comercial products, and it that byte
>> goes along it becomes "derived work" and cannot be protected...
>>
>> Please use BSD/MIT (or MPL if you don't want it to be completly free)
>>
>> For the compiler GPL is ok because no byte of the compiler executable
>> gets *into* the compiled code !!!
>>
>> THANKS
>> Alain
>>
>> Em 30-03-2011 18:37, Kustaa Nyholm escreveu:
>>> On 3/31/11 00:05, "Borut Ražem"<bor...@gm...>    wrote:
>>>> If this is so, there is no need to regenerate the files: we can just put
>>>> our copyright on the existing ones and declare that they are GPLed...
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing can be copyrighted: copyright comes into being by the creative
>>> process
>>> of creating original stuff. It either comes out of that process or not.
>>>
>>> Putting any number of copyright texts will not change the status of the
>>> file and if the file does not have a copyright, stamping it GPL will
>>> not work either as the only moral / enforceable hold GPL has over
>>> the source file is copyright.
>>>
>>> Of course you can put anything onto a non copyrighted text but the it
>>> has no legal power, just deterring power. Perhaps someone might claim
>>> damages if they feel that the misleading information has caused them harm.
>>>
>>> I would be in in favor of generating the files by any means from the
>>> info on the data sheets and stating that they are in the public domain.
>>>
>>> br Kusti
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 03/30/2011 08:31 PM, Weston Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> "Facts are not copyrightable, but a collection of facts in a certain
>>>>> order, etc. could be, not the facts themselves but their arrangement
>>>>> in the whole."
>>> Could be, but I don't think there is any artistic merit in the order
>>> they are presented or the source code formatting, unless very special.
>>> Heck, run the through a pretty printer and they format is totally machine
>>> generated with no originality.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> So my interpretation is that by extracting the facts, breaking the
>>>>> presentation into a different arrangement (xml file, arbitrary
>>>>> ordering, etc.) constitutes a new work that can be copyrighted
>>>>> separately (the facts in my documents are still not copyright-able, so
>>>>> someone else could do exactly the same thing with my work)
>>> Yes I think we can do that and might be slightly more safe than just
>>> copying the stuff from Microchip .inc files (or from where ever they
>>> currently come) but No, they are still not copyrighted.
>>>
>>> br Kusti
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Create and publish websites with WebMatrix
> Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself;
> WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and
> publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf
> _______________________________________________
> Sdcc-user mailing list
> Sdc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
>
>