> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Byron A Jeff
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:08 PM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OT:] SCO lobbying Congress about Linux
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:00:08PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > > AFAIK:
> > >
> > > - if you use GPL source code *STATICALLY LINKED* to your own
> > > code, you must release your source code as GPL.
> > >
> > > - if you use GPL source code *DINAMICALLY LINKED* to your
> > > code, yours is not GPL, unless you want it to.
> >
> > I think you are right if you meant LGPL. For GPL this
> distinction is not
> > made.
>
> Correct. If it's GPLed code, you must release the source in
> all cases when
> you distribute additions or modifications. Note that this applies to
> distribution only. If you make changes and you don't give it
> to anyone, then
> you're not obligated to do anything at all.
>
> > Unfortunately a PIC chip never contains dynamically linked code...
>
> True. But as you well know that with the LGPL if you
> statically link, you
> still don't have to release the non library source. But you do have to
> have a way for a user to relink the applications code to an
> updated library.
> And the current PIC tools can support this. A quick example:
>
> 1) I write a library for the PIC and make it LGPL. I release
> the source and
> a relocatable object of the code.
>
> 2) You write an application as a relocatable object and use
> the linker to link
> my library in. You program the complete executable onto a PIC
> and sell it.
> Note that you make no changes to the library in this case.
>
> Now given this situation you do not have to release the
> source to your code
> as its just a user of the library. However you do have to
> make relocatable
> objects of your application available to your users so that...
>
> 3) I update the library and make it 50 times more efficient
> than before. The
> end user can get my library relocatable object, your
> application relocatable
> objects and use the linker to create a new, more efficient
> executable that
> they can then use.
>
> Note that you never released your source to the applications
> code. However by
> facilitating relinking (even statically) the user remains
> free to use the free
> library in such a way as to benefit them. Also note that you
> can place any
> license you want for your source and relocatable objects. No
> copying, no
> reverse engineering (I believe...???) etc as long as you do
> not restrict the
> users rights to utilize the free library.
>
> Now we both know that JAL doesn't do this at this time,
> because it includes the
> library code and produces absolute executables that cannot be
> relinked.
> So the BSD would be a better fit for JALs libraries as is
> does not have the
> "must be able to update" clause.
>
> A better solution is to recode JAL to produce relocatable
> objects. Then the
> full force of the LGPL can then be utilized.
>
> BAJ
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads