gnupic: gputils license query
Subject:
Re: gputils license query
From:
"Mark J. Dulcey" ####@####.####
Date:
16 Jan 2005 22:47:10 +0000
Message-Id: <41EAEEE4.8050203@buttery.org>
David McNab wrote:
> On responding to a license query regarding pic18forth, I looked up
the > license for gputils.
>
> According to gputils website, gputils is issued under the GPL.
>
> I need to ask - does the GPL 'infect' any binary code generated by
> gputils? For instance, would the GPL automatically apply to:
>
> - .o files generated by gpasm from user-written .asm files?
> - .a files generated by gplib?
> - .hex files generated by gplink?
> and let's not forget:
> - .o/.hex files generated by gpal?
No, it should not "infect" binary code, just as one can develop non-free
software with GCC. See
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCCanIUseGPLToolsForNF and
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLOutput
Code libraries (collections of utility routines, such as the C library
used with SDCC -- though in that specific case, the library code isn't
covered by the GPL, although the compiler itself is) are another matter,
as the actual code in the library is part of the final result. If such
libraries are licensed under the GPL, they can only be used in free
software. See http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
gpal, if it ever gets released, will probably have to contain a code
library (something analogous to libc for C programs). If that code
library is released under the GPL rather than the LGPL, it will restrict
use of gpal to GPL-licensed programs.
Producing a .a file with gplib imposes no special GPL restrictions.
(Just clarifying the different uses of the word "library" here.) Using a
.a file that contains code modules written by others might, depending on
the license terms of the code.
