Matthieu Moy wrote: > [ I know this is out topic here, but I've already sent this mail twice > to [EMAIL PROTECTED], twice to the discussion list of the fsfeurope, > another time to the SystemC mailing list, and didn't get a single > answer :-( ] > > Hi, > > I've developped a piece of software using GCC as a C++ front-end and > the SystemC library. > > The SystemC license can be found from www.systemc.org (And I've > temporarily put a copy here: > http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/vrac/License.pdf )
Loooong license. Interestingly, most of it would make a very well designed (if verbose) permissive free software license. Unfortunately, a few clauses are definitely not free, and some others are questionable. (Yes, I know you didn't ask, but I'm analyzing it for freeness anyway.) 2.5 contains a weird line: "Recipient agrees that Recipient shall not remove or alter any proprietary notices contained in..." What the *heck* is a "proprietary notice"? 2.6b is insanely non-free, requiring that the "Recipient" help OSCI register its trademarks. (?!?) I wouldn't use the program just due to that. In 13, the choice of venue clause is unreasonable, and presumably non-free. Waiving your right to a jury trial is also non-free, I believe. They seem to feel the need to put the specifications of how to contribute into the license. This confuses matters, but is probably free. The definition of "Source Code" may make the license unusable for images, sound files, etc., which is obnoxious. And perhaps non-free, perhaps not. The license is GPL-incompatible, because it only allows source code distribution under the same license. -- Anyway, to answer *your* compatibility question, we would need more information about exactly how this works; the GPL has a system library exception, the LGPL has its linking exception, and GCC has its own special exceptions. If you can get the SystemC creators to agree to a GPL dual-license, that would probably be better. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
