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.
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.
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
or better, search for some of all the discussions of GPL/LGPL vs BSD
Libraries should have at the worst LGPL license, or be made free for
and have BSD license.
GPL can really only be used for programs, like the compiler.