gnupic: Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
From:
"Colm O' Flaherty" ####@####.####
Date:
5 Apr 2006 15:36:22 +0100
Message-Id: <BAY112-F1312D20DDDEDB46B60A673B4CB0@phx.gbl>
Hey, Alex, relax.. I was looking for answers, and now I seem to be getting
them. Nothing personal. ok?
I was prepared to agree to differ earlier, but you seemed to want to
continue the discussion then too.. :)
Having said that, the weight of the argument now seems to be in your favour,
so I'll just have to absorb whats been said..
>From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
>Reply-To: ####@####.####
>To: ####@####.####
>Subject: Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
>Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 15:05:01 +0100
>
>I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue this any more as you clearly don't
>believe I know what I'm talking about. Good luck persuading Microchip (and
>Rowley, and Keil, and all the other toolchain vendors selling products
>based around GCC) that their legal departments have interpreted the GPL
>incorrectly and they need to GPL their proprietary libraries and IDEs
>because they've distributed them in the same package as GCC. One last
>time...
>
>On 5 Apr 2006, at 13:49, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
>>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.
>
>Because it falls under the aggregation clause. Microchip's C library isn't
>a derivative work of GCC because it wasn't created by taking GCC's code
>and modifying it. Distributing the two works together in one package
>doesn't create a single work that is derivative of both GCC and the C
>library. A package file is simply a way of conveniently distributing
>multiple works at the same time, and is equivalent to a CD ROM or a tape
>archive (.tar files anyone?). You wouldn't say that every program on a
>linux distribution CD must be covered by the GPL because some of the
>programs on it are GPLed and bundling them together creates a single
>derivative work would you?
>
>>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?
>
>That means you're not supposed to only distribute the source code to part
>of a modified work, you need to distribute the source to the whole work.
>It doesn't say anything about other non-GPLed works that are included in
>the same package file as the GPLed work.
>
>>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?
>
>Not relevant to this case. They're not using an NDA as far as I'm aware,
>they're not releasing a GPLed work under a different license, and they're
>not adding modules to a GPLed program.
>
>>- What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two
>>modules into one program"?
>
>This explains why what Microchip are doing is mere aggregation, not
>combining two modules into one program.
>
>--
>------------ 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: ####@####.####
>
