From: Adam Dunkels (adam_at_sics.se)
Date: 2002-04-02 14:44:26
On Tuesday 02 April 2002 14.23, you wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:00:32PM +0200, Adam Dunkels wrote: > > 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. > > That is true, but you have forgotten to look at it the other way. The cc65 > license does not place additional restrictions on the GPL code - but the > GPL code does have additional demands regarding the cc65 code. If your > arguments were true, how would you interpret the paragraph from the GPL > cited by me? Especially: > > 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. > > For me this reads: If GPLed code is linked statically to the cc65 library, > and distributed as a whole (as a program binary for example), the whole > (executable) must be on the terms of the GPL, including the parts that were > not GPLed before. The latter is actually a violation of the cc65 copyright, > because it does relicense parts of the cc65 library without agreement of > the author. > > I would be glad if you could prove me wrong, so assuming you're right, how > do you think the cited paragraph should be read? I knew I had read about this somewhere, and it turns out that it was in the GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense And a more practical note is that there are numerous examples of GPL code that includes BSD licensed stuff. Linux (the kernel) has a lot of BSD licensed code, for example. > > 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. > > I've read the GPL several times in the last few days and found no such > wording. It has exceptions in case of "major parts of the operating system > you are using", but I think we agree that this does not cover cc65 and it's > library. Yes, that's the exceptions I was refering to. I guess it doesn't really apply in the cc65 case, because cc65 couldn't be constedered an operating system. But it doesn't really matter because the cc65 library code is freely redistributable, and thus compatiable with the GPL. The FAQ mentions this as well: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL /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 14:44:33 CEST