gnupic: Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
From:
"Colm O' Flaherty" ####@####.####
Date:
5 Apr 2006 13:49:18 +0100
Message-Id: <BAY112-F27CCB30FF9BF5062B3F5EB4CB0@phx.gbl>
>You seem to be interpreting "the modified work as a whole" to mean the
>installer (zipfile, tarball, whatever) and everything contained in it. I
>disagree. The "modified work as a whole" in this case is simply GCC, not
>the other libraries and programs that Microchip have bundled with it.
I think thats a good summary of our interpretations... The PICC-gcc
compiler (as opposed to the C30 package which contains it) is certainly a
"modified work".. no argument there. Why isn't the C30 package (and its
distributed in such a fashion) which contains the PIC-gcc compiler also a
"modified work" then? It seems to fit the criteria.
<quote>
This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language.
</quote>
Note: 'a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
derivative work under copyright law:that is to say, a work containing the
Program or a portion of it'. Isn't C30 a work that contain GNU CC?? Whats
special about C30 that means that the clause above doesn't apply to it?
And why would the GPL say "These requirements apply to the modified work as
a whole." if you don't mean the package that contains GNU CC?
Some info from the FSF itself on the GPL.. I don't see anything in here that
would explain how, in this case, the linker scripts (etc) are not covered by
the GPL. Everything seems to indicate that these additional elements (which
are released as part of C30, which incorporates a modified version of
GNU-CC) *are* covered by the GPL, and are, as a result, free for general
use. (and cannot have a more restrictive licence placed on them by
Microchip).
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
See the following:
- Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a
nondisclosure agreement?
- I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license.
Is this possible?
- If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the GPL as
the license for my module?
- What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two
modules into one program"?
Colm
>From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
>Reply-To: ####@####.####
>To: ####@####.####
>Subject: Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
>Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:50:06 +0100
>
>On 5 Apr 2006, at 12:31, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
>>>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.
>
>You seem to be interpreting "the modified work as a whole" to mean the
>installer (zipfile, tarball, whatever) and everything contained in it. I
>disagree. The "modified work as a whole" in this case is simply GCC, not
>the other libraries and programs that Microchip have bundled with it.
>
>--
>------------ 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: ####@####.####
>
