Re: [Sdcc-user] SDCC Licensing, was: GPLed PIC USB package using SDCC, from Nuts & Volts

[Mark S. <mar...@ch...>]

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