gnupic: gputils license query
Subject:
Re: gputils license query
From:
David McNab ####@####.####
Date:
16 Jan 2005 23:07:22 +0000
Message-Id: <41EAF38D.20601@rebirthing.co.nz>
Mark J. Dulcey wrote:
> > I need to ask - does the GPL 'infect' any binary code generated by
> > gputils? For instance, would the GPL automatically apply to:
>
> 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
Thanks for your reply.
I'm thinking of the assembler statements generated by gpal in response
to users' gpal input files.
For instance, if a line of user code performs a 32-bit division, then
gpal has to crank out a wad of 'canned' assembler statements for
performing that division.
So in the case of gpal, are such machine-generated assembler statements
covered by the GPL? Should gpal's licensing contain clauses to
explicitly relax the GPL on such machine-generated code?
> 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.
For pure-software development, the GPL has a lot of support. But for
hardware projects containing embedded software, such as PIC-based
projects, I fear gpal may repel developers users in their droves if it
has a licensing regime demanding that customers buying the hardware have
access to the firmware source.
As for myself, I'm a staunch GPL supporter when writing software for
PCs. But for my PIC projects, I won't touch with a barge pole any
language tool that requires me to make my firmware source available to
consumers buying the finished product.
--
Cheers
David
