---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id A9F52684007A; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:13:57 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <15.00CC141A@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:43:42 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 4910 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:43:35 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 0509; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:43:09 -0500 Received: from staff.webbox.com [207.183.234.76] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with ESMTP ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:43:09 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by staff.webbox.com Received: from mauve [207.231.76.117] by staff.webbox.com (SMTPD32-6.00) id A227159005A; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:40:39 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain content-length: 1893 Message-ID: <28010428.38591@webbox.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:40:41 -0800 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: William Couture Subject: Re: [OT]: JAL licensing (was SCO lobbying Congress about Linux) To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856148 >--- Original Message --- >From: Wouter van Ooijen >Date: 1/28/04 7:23:19 AM > > Have you considered what they do for GNU bison? > >Thinking: I could apply GPL, and then add a line like "In >addition to the GPL license granted as above an unlimited >license is granted to use the result obtained by compiling >this file (maybe in combination with other files) into an >executable format (.hex file or equivalent)." > >Now a remaining problem is: what whould prevent a person >from enhancing the library, removing that scentence from >the library text, and distributing the result? In other >words: the GPL is carefully worded to be 'sticky'. Such a >simple scentence is not. IMHO the same problem applies to >the Bison case. I'm wondering if you're putting more into this JAL library question than is actually there. The fact that a compiler is GPL'ed does not mean that it's output from a propriatary program is automatically GPL'ed. So, in a hypothetical JAL program that does not use any library functions, the output from the GPL'ed JAL compiler is not under the GPL. Now, forgive me if the JAL compiler works differently, but if the library is not explicitly included in the source program to be compiled i.e. the user does not cut-and- paste the JAL library source into his program, it's put there by the compiler, even though the user might have a line like #include "library.h" then the user has not put the GPL'ed library code into his program, it's the action of the compiler that does this. And the output of the compiler, probably a .HEX file, does not contain the GPL'ed library (which is a source file), instead it contains the output of the compiler, which we have already noted does not have to automatically be GPL'ed. Does this make sense to people, or am I off in space somewhere? Bill -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics .