From: Adam Dunkels (adam_at_sics.se)
Date: 2002-04-02 15:23:48
On Tuesday 02 April 2002 14.58, you wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:44:26PM +0200, Adam Dunkels wrote: > > 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 > > This does list an example which I is not very similar to the case we have > with cc65. I haven't read the cc65 licenses very carefully, but if they are compatible with the GPL, there shoud be no problems in linking GPL code with them. (The original cc65 copyright license isn't compatible with the GPL, though, because it says that "You don't charge anything for the copy.") Think of the cc65 libraries as the module that is to be added to a GPL-covered module, then the FAQ answer makes more sense in this particular situation. The answer says "But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax than the GPL but compatible with the GPL." In this case, the cc65 library (which is refered to as "your code" in the above answer) license is more lax than the GPL. As long as it is compatible with the GPL, there are no problems. Anyway, this is how I interpret the GNU homepage and FAQs. But when it comes to the interpretation of the actual GPL text, I'll gratefully leave that to the lawyers ;-) /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 15:23:58 CEST