Re: [sdcc-devel] sdcc library license

[Vangelis R. <vr...@ot...>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Borut Razem" <bor...@si...>
To: <sdc...@li...>
Subject: Re: [sdcc-devel] sdcc library license


> At the first glance it seemed to me an easy task: just replace the GPL 
> with LGPL, with the authors approval, so it seemed feasible for 2.6.0 to 
> me. But then I realized that LGPL is not the right license to use.
>
> First we have to decide about the licensing rules:
> - the sdcc library can be used for non open source projects
> - it can be statically linked with non open source projects

As far as PIC16 library is concerned I definetely agree with this approach.
Someone mentioned earlier about using GPL with a modification, does this
cover our case? Would a modification of GPL be valid?

> - what about the changes of the library sources: should all the changed 
> code be public available and submitted back to sdcc project (as for PL, 
> LGPL)?

What do you mean with changes? Why should library sources be re-submitted
back to sdcc project?


> From the above written it is evident that the task is not so trivial, so I 
> agree to postpone it but not forget it.

If it fits our timeline why not proceed? When I first comitted pic16 library 
I had the
same problem finding the best license to cover it. Then I decided to go with 
GPL
since most of SDCC and libraries are under that license.


> P.S.: 3.0 is a nice release number... :-)

I agree, if we manage to stabilize pic16 port and have the regression tests 
fixed,
why not to go with 3.0 ?! :-)

regards,
Vangelis