From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2006-06-27 20:07:20
|
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > GPL with linkage exception as used by gcc seems to be perfect to me: > - -It will allow unrestricted use of sdcc to compiler other programs. > - -It will not allow vendors of non-free compilers with non-free libraries > to use the sdcc library. > > This really looks promising to me. Thank you, Philipp and Cesar! Borut |
From: Lloyd S. <ll...@ma...> - 2006-06-28 00:40:44
|
> Borut Razem wrote: > >> I'm more favorable to the BSD license, see http:// >> www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php. > > Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > > This would allow vendors of non-free compilers to use the sdcc > library, > which I think is not a good thing. > > GPL with linkage exception as used by gcc seems to be perfect to me: > - -It will allow unrestricted use of sdcc to compiler other programs. > - -It will not allow vendors of non-free compilers with non-free > libraries > to use the sdcc library. Personally, I favor the BSD license as well. I guess I'm not bothered by people using free software (and one can always add their OWN license to prevent the use in non-free compilers). To be honest, there will be few non-free compiler vendors that will do that (the "not invented here" syndrome). I think it is a moot point, to be honest. Okay, I'll go back to the shadows... Lloyd |
From: Xiaofan C. <xia...@gm...> - 2006-06-29 05:50:37
|
On 6/28/06, Lloyd Sargent <ll...@ma...> wrote: > > Borut Razem wrote: > > > >> I'm more favorable to the BSD license, see http:// > >> www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php. > > > > Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > > > > This would allow vendors of non-free compilers to use the sdcc > > library, > > which I think is not a good thing. > > > > GPL with linkage exception as used by gcc seems to be perfect to me: > > - -It will allow unrestricted use of sdcc to compiler other programs. > > - -It will not allow vendors of non-free compilers with non-free > > libraries > > to use the sdcc library. > > Personally, I favor the BSD license as well. I guess I'm not bothered > by people using free software (and one can always add their OWN > license to prevent the use in non-free compilers). > > To be honest, there will be few non-free compiler vendors that will > do that (the "not invented here" syndrome). I think it is a moot > point, to be honest. > > Okay, I'll go back to the shadows... > > Lloyd I am not a developer but I like modified BSD license like the avr-libc. http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/LICENSE.txt There may be unknown issues with GPL or GPL with exceptions. I am not a lawyer though... Regards, Xiaofan |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2006-06-29 14:06:26
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > There may be unknown issues with GPL or GPL with exceptions. > I am not a lawyer though... The GPL with exceptions is used by nearly every free compiler for it's libraries. It's used for gcc, which has been around for two decades. I've never heard about problems. Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEo9nFbtUV+xsoLpoRAqa1AKDBYTPxEWrVNd/oNW5HLYlgsF0W5ACg1GbG xJN/aZv/HcJ5AyYki3ou/1U= =KCrD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Xiaofan C. <xia...@gm...> - 2006-06-29 14:34:24
|
On 6/29/06, Philipp Klaus Krause <pk...@sp...> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > There may be unknown issues with GPL or GPL with exceptions. > > I am not a lawyer though... > > The GPL with exceptions is used by nearly every free compiler for it's > libraries. > It's used for gcc, which has been around for two decades. > I've never heard about problems. > > Philipp I do not know where you get the "nearly every free compiler" data... I only know that newlib (http://sources.redhat.com/newlib/COPYING.NEWLIB) (which is popular for embedded world) and avr-libc (modified BSD) are not using GPL with excpetions. And many of the msp430-libc (mspgcc) files are covered by BSD license. GNU-68hc1x is using newlib. Regards, Xiaofan |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2006-06-29 15:17:55
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On 6/29/06, Philipp Klaus Krause <pk...@sp...> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >>> There may be unknown issues with GPL or GPL with exceptions. >>> I am not a lawyer though... >> The GPL with exceptions is used by nearly every free compiler for it's >> libraries. >> It's used for gcc, which has been around for two decades. >> I've never heard about problems. >> >> Philipp > > I do not know where you get the "nearly every free compiler" data... Sorry, change that "nearly every" to "many". GNU classpath uses it. libstdc++ (from g++) uses it. libgnat (from gnat) uses a sigltly modified one (due to some Ada-specific problems). The gpc runtime library uses it. libgcj uses it. libgcc uses it. the mudflap library uses it. the ssp library uses it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEo+8abtUV+xsoLpoRAmT5AKDRYXDIB26HDo+JKE9OELYthtghPwCgg4U+ J0c7t+aF9iwIgKmsSNDNS58= =CSxd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Ragnar S. <ra...@na...> - 2006-06-29 17:20:40
|
On 29 jun 2006, at 17.17, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Xiaofan Chen wrote: >> On 6/29/06, Philipp Klaus Krause <pk...@sp...> wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> >>>> There may be unknown issues with GPL or GPL with exceptions. >>>> I am not a lawyer though... >>> The GPL with exceptions is used by nearly every free compiler for >>> it's >>> libraries. >>> It's used for gcc, which has been around for two decades. >>> I've never heard about problems. >>> >>> Philipp >> >> I do not know where you get the "nearly every free compiler" data... > > Sorry, change that "nearly every" to "many". > > GNU classpath uses it. > libstdc++ (from g++) uses it. > libgnat (from gnat) uses a sigltly modified one (due to some > Ada-specific problems). > The gpc runtime library uses it. > libgcj uses it. > libgcc uses it. > the mudflap library uses it. > the ssp library uses it. Do you see a common thread in most of these libraries (hint, it starts with "g"). Do you know how many commersial products actually using them? My guess is: Very few, because otherwise you can have the source code, and most companies don't want that. If you never heard of problems, check the background for LGPL (anno 1999), or better, search for some of all the discussions of GPL/LGPL vs BSD licenses. Libraries should have at the worst LGPL license, or be made free for real and have BSD license. GPL can really only be used for programs, like the compiler. /ragge |
From: Mark S. <mar...@ch...> - 2006-06-29 18:26:23
|
Sorry for the cross post, but this discussion is taking place in at least two fora. Here are the issues with different licenses: 1. LGPL protects the libraries, but static linking make it's terms identical to the GPL, thus it is unsuitable for our use. 2. BSD license is almost like public domain, and SDCC libraries could be apropriated. 3. Standard GPL protects the libraries, but makes commercial/ proprietary development impossible. 4. GPL plus runtime exception protects the libraries themselves , but allows proprietary development. The goal of relicensing the libraries is to make proprietary software development 100% legal with SDCC. In addition, some developers have expressed a desire to protect their libraries. The only license that meets these criteria is GPL plus the runtime exception. You don't have to believe me on 4, Apple Computer's squad of attack lawyers holds that opinion, otherwise OS X would not be compiled using GCC. Here's the full text of the exception (I changed the 'GNU Compiler' to 'SDCC': 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. The SDCC could be replaced by a general term such as 'GPL licensed compiler' or 'compiler with a GPL compatible license'. If we wish to avoid writing a new license (a desirable goal--there are too many OSS/Free licenses), the only other option is to modify the LGPL to allow static linking. I am inclined against trying to write an addendum to the LGPL due to the probability of unintended consequences of a simple miswording. Therefore, I suggest that SDCC libraries be licensed using a GCC style runtime exception if the author(s) of the libraries desire them to be protected. Otherwise they should be BSD licensed. This will allow the Copyleft contingent to protect the rights of the community, and the BSD partisans can act to protect the rights of individuals. Everyone will be able to use SDCC to develop whatever they see fit. --Mark On Jun 29, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Ragnar Sundblad wrote: > > On 29 jun 2006, at 17.17, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > >> >>>> I've never heard about problems. >>>> >>>> Philipp >>> >>> I do not know where you get the "nearly every free compiler" data... >> > > If you never heard of problems, check the background for LGPL (anno > 1999), > or better, search for some of all the discussions of GPL/LGPL vs BSD > licenses. > > Libraries should have at the worst LGPL license, or be made free for > real > and have BSD license. > GPL can really only be used for programs, like the compiler. > > /ragge |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2006-06-29 19:18:25
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ragnar Sundblad wrote: > Do you see a common thread in most of these libraries (hint, it > starts with "g"). > Do you know how many commersial products actually using them? My > guess is: Very > few, because otherwise you can have the source code, and most > companies don't > want that. Most of these libraries are automatically linked with every program compiled with a GCC compiler. Every commercial product compiled with a GCC compiler uses one. Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEpCd1btUV+xsoLpoRAjw8AKDqX6JaJcksAVZAjSz0az+sfziTYACfb7ZG brs0BPK/uh/ozk9lArI8GC0= =axiN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Ragnar S. <ra...@na...> - 2006-06-29 20:40:08
|
On 29 jun 2006, at 21.18, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ragnar Sundblad wrote: > >> Do you see a common thread in most of these libraries (hint, it >> starts with "g"). >> Do you know how many commersial products actually using them? My >> guess is: Very >> few, because otherwise you can have the source code, and most >> companies don't >> want that. > > Most of these libraries are automatically linked with every program > compiled with a GCC compiler. > Every commercial product compiled with a GCC compiler uses one. No, the gcc compiler links to libraries with LGPL or other lesser restricted GPL derivates. Otherwise gcc would be useless for many companies (as they, sadly, typically don't want you to have the source). See Mark's very nice summary. I don't understand Why people can't just let code free for real and use BSD style licenses. It works pretty well for many projects. /ragge |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2006-06-29 22:15:16
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ragnar Sundblad wrote: > No, the gcc compiler links to libraries with LGPL or other lesser > restricted GPL derivates. Otherwise gcc would be useless for many > companies (as they, sadly, typically don't want you to have the source). > > See Mark's very nice summary. - From http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html Q: I see. So, what restrictions are there on programs that use the library? A: None. We encourage such programs to be released as open source, but we won't punish you or sue you if you choose otherwise. and Q: So any program which uses libstdc++ falls under the GPL? A: No. The special exception permits use of the library in proprietary applications. - From Mark's summary you mentioned: 4. GPL plus runtime exception protects the libraries themselves , but allows proprietary development. Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEpFDpbtUV+xsoLpoRAjPjAKCEICyUpEI7Glam4bpPckapoWfZ5gCfeNw7 yKPTriPBFxkS2nRCgRcY5+s= =7IZJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Ragnar S. <ra...@na...> - 2006-06-29 23:00:21
|
On 30 jun 2006, at 00.15, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ragnar Sundblad wrote: > >> No, the gcc compiler links to libraries with LGPL or other lesser >> restricted GPL derivates. Otherwise gcc would be useless for many >> companies (as they, sadly, typically don't want you to have the >> source). >> >> See Mark's very nice summary. > > - From http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html > > Q: I see. So, what restrictions are there on programs that use the > library? > A: None. We encourage such programs to be released as open source, but > we won't punish you or sue you if you choose otherwise. > > and > > Q: So any program which uses libstdc++ falls under the GPL? > A: No. The special exception permits use of the library in proprietary > applications. > > - From Mark's summary you mentioned: > 4. GPL plus runtime exception protects the libraries themselves , but > allows proprietary development. > > Philipp Yes, the difference in this case is GPL versus GPL with runtime exception They are two different things and should not be confused. /ragge |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2006-06-30 04:37:01
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Yes, the difference in this case is > GPL > versus > GPL with runtime exception > > They are two different things and should not be confused. Difference? The list of libraries I posted was a list of libraries using the GPL with linking exception (since that's the name that's used on wikipedia I did choose that term instead of "runtime exception"). It was part of a reply to > There may be unknown issues with GPL or GPL with exceptions. Since the only exception to the GPL mentioned on this list before was the linking exception "GPl with exceptions" could only mean that one. Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEpKppbtUV+xsoLpoRAlkZAJkBDStgvwUmHwr5J0LvUk7f6ec2OgCgs5lh QDsCIkxq6TSHbGf1dqUJe5o= =4GwF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Ragnar S. <ra...@na...> - 2006-06-30 09:27:14
|
On 30 jun 2006, at 06.36, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > Difference? > The list of libraries I posted was a list of libraries using the GPL > with linking exception (since that's the name that's used on > wikipedia I > did choose that term instead of "runtime exception"). Ok, sounds that we agree then, good! There has been problems during the two decades, though, and that is why they have invented different versions of the license (like LGPL and "GPL with XXX"). GPL can be rather problematic. /ragge |
From: Jesus Calvino-F. <Je...@ec...> - 2006-06-29 17:38:26
|
At 08:17 AM 6/29/2006, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >GNU classpath uses it. >libstdc++ (from g++) uses it. >libgnat (from gnat) uses a sigltly modified one (due to some >Ada-specific problems). >The gpc runtime library uses it. >libgcj uses it. >libgcc uses it. >the mudflap library uses it. >the ssp library uses it. The arm-hp library for the hp49g+ calculator has something like it too: //& This file is part of HP-GCC. //& //& HP-GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify //& it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by //& the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) //& any later version. //& //& HP-GCC is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, //& but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of //& MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the //& GNU General Public License for more details. //& //& You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License //& along with HP-GCC; see the file COPYING. //& //& As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free software //& library without restriction. Specifically, if other files instantiate //& templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile //& this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this //& file does not by itself 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. |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2006-06-29 13:58:59
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Lloyd Sargent wrote: > To be honest, there will be few non-free compiler vendors that will > do that (the "not invented here" syndrome). I think it is a moot > point, to be honest. Microsoft has integrated BSD-Licensed free software into it's products multiple times, the best known examples are their TCP/IP stack, their ftp client and the message passing interface. Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEo9xebtUV+xsoLpoRAivMAJ4gr7lnyYSvnqlOZFuFpR/uCaU5zQCeIscf kUNUqntM4hit9s3BZ+GMUMc= =bJZ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Xiaofan C. <xia...@gm...> - 2006-06-29 14:02:45
|
On 6/29/06, Philipp Klaus Krause <pk...@sp...> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Lloyd Sargent wrote: > > > To be honest, there will be few non-free compiler vendors that will > > do that (the "not invented here" syndrome). I think it is a moot > > point, to be honest. > > Microsoft has integrated BSD-Licensed free software into it's products > multiple times, the best known examples are their TCP/IP stack, their > ftp client and the message passing interface. > > Philipp > What is the problem here? |