From: Adam Dunkels (adam_at_sics.se)
Date: 2002-04-02 14:00:32
Hi! On Monday 01 April 2002 13.24, you wrote: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 09:49:55PM +0200, BlackJack/Civitas wrote: > > Like you I'm not a lawyer. I guess it's possible to distribute code > > with a double license - GPL and your cc65 license. So the source code > > itself can be redistributed under GPL terms and it's still legal to > > compile it against your runtime library. > > This would mean that anyone writing programs that are going to be compiled > with cc65, and distributed in binary form must double license them, which > effectively disables any provisions of the GPL. I'm pretty sure that > Stallman, when hearing this, would be at least as upset as I have been a > few days ago:-) > > FYI, here is the paragraph from the GPL I was refering to all the time: > > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If > identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the > Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and > separate works in themselves, then this License, and its > terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them > as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections > as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the > distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this > License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the > entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of > who wrote it. > > As far as I understand this, it demands definitely that any code > distributed in a binary that is GPLed is covered by the GPL itself. So in > case of a program compiled with cc65 and linked against the cc65 runtime, > the GPL demands that the cc65 library routines are covered by the GPL - > which is not possible because the authors have to agree with such a change. > This means in fact that a program compiled with cc65 and distributed, > cannot include any GPLed code. I believe your interpretation is slightly wrong. The GPL forces you to make the full sourcecode avaliable for binaries where (parts of) the code is covered by the GPL, but it doesn't force you to actually relicense the whole code. As long as the non-GPL parts are freely distributable, everything works fine. Consider this: It would be perfectly legal and OK for me to modify a version of cc65, perhaps add a Java front-end to it, and make my changes avaliable under the GPL. Anyone who wishes to distribute my modified cc65 as a binary must make the full source code avaliable - both the source code for my modifications and for cc65. This works because the cc65 license permits free distribution is source form. But it doesn't place any kinds of restrictions on the actual cc65 code - only on my modifications. If someone would take a GPL covered program from a third-party and link it against, say, Ullrich's RS232 library code, it would be perfectly legal. The reason is that the library code is free - it doesn't place any additional conditions on the GPL code. There is nothing that forces the RS232 code to be relicensed under the GPL. In the specific case of standard compiler libraries such as the standard C library, I believe there are some special wording in the GPL to make it possible to compile GPL code even with proprietary libraries. /adam -- Adam Dunkels <adam_at_sics.se> http://www.sics.se/~adam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2002-04-02 14:02:18 CEST