Lloyd Sargent wrote: > Mark Swayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > wrote: > >> 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. >> > > 1. This is correct. Static linking can become very problematic. Thus > for embedded systems it isn't a good choice. > > 2. This is NOT like public domain. By definition public domain HAS no > copyright. This is very different from BSD which sez that you MUST > keep the copyright info. The difference between GPL and BSD thus are > "do I have to release modified code". BSD sez no. GPL sez you have to. The BSD license is like public domain in that you can do pretty much anything you want to with it. Over the limited domain of 'ability to incorporate with proprietary software', BSD is very much like PD. It is, as you say, different in that the code retains copyright. This is an excellent license, and I recommend it for developers who do not care if their code is incorporated into proprietary software. The BSD license puts individual freedom before the needs of the community. Whether this is a good thing is an individual moral/ethical decision, and I do not pretend to have a definitive answer. > 3. Not entirely correct - as long as your code is "still functional > without the libraries" (it does not define what "functional" means) > then yes, you can do commercial development. The trick falls in > "functional". I'm not a lawyer and I wouldn't want to try to take THIS > to court. Too problematic. It's a bit tough to have a non-trivial C program that is functional without the standard C libraries. > 4. I'm not sure what this means - are you talking about a modified > LGPL? I would like a little more info by what you mean by this before > critiquing it... > I refer to the runtime exception (aka linking exception, libgcc exception, runtime GPL) used by GCC for its libraries. I included slightly modified text of an older version of the runtime exception in my original post. See this page for the current text and some answers to specific, pragmatic questions: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html
With this exception, commercial, proprietary development is possible. Actually, without it, you couldn't use GCC to produce BSD licensed software. Protecting the ability to compile software under any license is its purpose. The reason this exception was developed is that with C++ programs, enough code from standard libraries is directly added to the compiled object files (through inline functions, templates, etc.). This makes LGPL unusable for C++ libraries, just like it is unusable for SDCC's 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. > > Yes, and the Mac (of which I own many) doesn't use static linking. So > I'm a little puzzled how this validates your argument... GCC is used by many companies for commercial software. It is explicitly stated in the licensing material that comes with GCC that this is legal. GCC libraries are licensed under Runtime GPL, static and dynamic linking have absolutely nothing to do with it. Please read the terms of the exception I linked above. > The only LEGAL way you can have everything about the GPL, but allow > for static linking, is to MODIFY the GPL. As you say, this is tricky, > at best. Again, I would argue that the cleanest route is BSD as it > assures that the software MAINTAINS THE COPYRIGHT and has NO > RESTRICTIONS. If Joe Blow wants to make a private version for CompCo, > how does that take anything away from me? Exactly. The modification has already been done. We do not need to come up with a new, specialized flavor of the GPL. The FSF has already done it for us. As I said in my first post, I think that SDCC libraries should be either BSD or Runtime GPL licensed in order to be distributed with SDCC. Either, depending on what the developer of the library prefers. Both licenses allow an SDCC user to develop under whatever license she pleases, which is the goal of this discussion.. > I guess I don't understand the "GPL or nothing" viewpoint. I thought > the goal (at least with SDCC) was to allow people to use it for > serious development, including projects they wish to sell. To that > end, BSD gives the maximum freedom. > > Back to the shadows... > > Lloyd Both the BSD and Runtime GPL license meet the stated goal. The issue of GPL vs BSD comes down to an individual value judgment. BSD puts a premium on individual freedom--the recipient of the code is free to do anything with the code but claim it as their own. With the GPL, the needs of the community are given more weight--one must agree to a social contract in order to use the code. Which is 'better' is a value judgment and is the sort of thing that moral and political philosophers and a few economists have devoted careers to unraveling. Do the needs of the one out weigh the needs of the many? Kirk says yes, Spock says no--whatever, I've never been one to appeal to dieties for guidance. In any case, I would like to avoid a licensing war. Licensing discussions tend to get heated and descend into pointless shouting matches. My sincere hope is that we have avoided that fate. I made my first post in an attempt to clarify the issues relating to possible licenses, so that we could get back to productive topics. The key issue was that the Runtime GPL was being confused with the standard GPL. I hope I have further clarified the what the Runtime GPL is, how the Runtime GPL differs from the LGPL and why the BSD and Runtime GPL licenses are good licenses for the SDCC libraries. --mark Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
