gnupic: Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
From:
"Colm O' Flaherty" ####@####.####
Date:
5 Apr 2006 12:31:56 +0100
Message-Id: <BAY112-F18155F4EF874E930BB3CBFB4CB0@phx.gbl>
Alex,
When you say..
>If they haven't used any GPLed code to create their library then the GPL
>doesn't apply to it. Bundling gcc and their C library into one package is
>simply aggregation.
I just don't follow that logic at all.. It seems to completely ignore the
GPL clause that says the following (How the distribution happens seems to
be the key).
<quote>
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.
</quote>
But hey, we can agree to differ, right? :)
This discussion might also be better placed in the gcc list forum than
here.. (Its relevant here, but more relevant there).
Colm
>From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
>Reply-To: ####@####.####
>To: ####@####.####
>Subject: Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
>Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:04:28 +0100
>
>On 5 Apr 2006, at 11:47, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
>><quote>
>>In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
>>with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
>>a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
>>the scope of this License.
>></quote>
>>Fair enough, but this doesn't seem to me to be entirely relevant here.
>>This refers to someone creating a GNU PIC bundle (for example), with both
>>GPL'ed software and non GPL'ed software aggregated on the same medium
>>(CD). All this clause says is that in doing this, you do not cause the
>>non-GPL'ed software to fall under the GPL.
>
>It is relevant because in this case "another work" (Microchip's C library
>with associated header files) is not, as far as I am aware, based in any
>way on "the Program" (gcc). If they haven't used any GPLed code to create
>their library then the GPL doesn't apply to it. Bundling gcc and their C
>library into one package is simply aggregation.
>
>>What about the following, as quoted earlier? This seems to be directly
>>applicable to the C30 compiler package, which has portions not directly
>>based on gnu cc (the linker scripts, etc). These are not distributed as
>>separate works, but as part of the C30 compiler package, which is based
>>on GNU CC. This implies "the distribution of the whole must be on the
>>terms of
>>this License".. ie, the entire of Microchips C30 compiler package must be
>>on the terms of the GPL.
>
>The GPL applies to GPLed source code and binaries created by
>compiling/assembling that source code. It doesn't apply to other programs
>that are bundled together with them in a single package.
>
>>These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.
>
>That means simply a program/library that is licensed under the GPL. It
>doesn't mean a tarball, zipfile, Windows installer, etc. that contains
>both GPLed programs and non-GPLed programs.
>
>>I'm not familiar with the ARM example.. Do you have more details?
>
>Rowley sell an ARM development environment that bundles ARM GCC with their
>own proprietary C library, linker scripts, and IDE.
>
>--
>------------ Alex Holden - http://www.alexholden.net/ ------------
>If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
>For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>
