Searching \ for '[OT]: JAL licensing (was SCO lobbying Congress abo' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=jal+licensing+was
Search entire site for: 'JAL licensing (was SCO lobbying Congress abo'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: JAL licensing (was SCO lobbying Congress abo'
2004\01\27@143517 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
Wouter:

I had a crazy idea. How about implementing an 'object' format for JAL which
is nothing more than a pretokenized copy of the source.

You would then #import this tokenized file into the compilation instead of
normal source.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

{Original Message removed}

2004\01\27@144138 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I had a crazy idea. How about implementing an 'object' format
> for JAL which
> is nothing more than a pretokenized copy of the source.

If I would do something along that line it would be much like you
indicated. But how about error messages? The structure of Jal is such
that an included library file can produce an error - inside the library
file - depending on the global context. And an error message contains
the source line. So the tokenised version should include all source
lines?

Seriously, I don't think a technical change to the compiler is the right
answer to a licensing problem!

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

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

2004\01\28@055247 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

May I try to summarise the situation with JAL as I understand it?  Please correct me if (where!) I'm wrong:

1. You have invented a computer language, called it JAL and written a compiler for it.

2. The JAL compiler runs on a PC (or some other non-embedded machine) and it produces PIC machine code as
output.

3. JAL can have libraries added to it that contain new code written by others.

4. You want to grant free-of-charge access to anyone to use the JAL language, the compiler and any libraries,
so that they can write JAL programs and produce PIC code from them.

5. You want the libraries (and the JAL compiler itself?) to be Open Source, so others can add to/improve it
and those additions/improvements are available for all to use, free-of-charge.

6. You want to retain copyright on the JAL compiler and libraries, so that the Open Source element can't be
defeated, so that items (4) and (5) will always be true.

7. You don't want any compiled code (the stuff that runs on a PIC) to be restricted by your licence in any
way.

8. You don't want any money for any of this.

If this is correct, then I don't see there is much of a problem.  The argument that "embedded programs don't
call libraries dynamically" does not apply, because the embedded programs are output from the compiler, not
covered by the licence for source of the compiler/libraries.  Let's face it, people use Outlook to write
emails bashing Microsoft, and MS could not stop them doing so because the copyright on Outlook does not cover
output produced by it.  On the other side, I don't think that the open-source licence on emacs has any effect
on the output it produces (edited text files, say) so there is no compulsion on anyone to make public every
document they write using emacs.

To summarise: I believe that in general the licence in effect on a piece of software does not affect the
rights of the user in releation to the output it produces.

Only the most restrictive proprietary software licences attempt to copyright (or in the US, patent) the output
the software produces, and these are really rare, and I'm fairly sure they'd fail in court, at least in
Europe.  Unless you specifically try to copyright the output of the JAL compiler (and the creators of the
output-file format, Microchip or Intel, would probably stop this anyway), as I see it the code produced can be
handled by the programmer in any way they want, including copyrighting it, keeping it secret, and charging
money.

Consequently I believe you can just use the licence you want for the compiler and libraries, and ignore
anything to do with the output, even though the output happens to be software.

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
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

2004\01\28@055247 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

May I try to summarise the situation with JAL as I understand it?  Please correct me if (where!) I'm wrong:

1. You have invented a computer language, called it JAL and written a compiler for it.

2. The JAL compiler runs on a PC (or some other non-embedded machine) and it produces PIC machine code as
output.

3. JAL can have libraries added to it that contain new code written by others.

4. You want to grant free-of-charge access to anyone to use the JAL language, the compiler and any libraries,
so that they can write JAL programs and produce PIC code from them.

5. You want the libraries (and the JAL compiler itself?) to be Open Source, so others can add to/improve it
and those additions/improvements are available for all to use, free-of-charge.

6. You want to retain copyright on the JAL compiler and libraries, so that the Open Source element can't be
defeated, so that items (4) and (5) will always be true.

7. You don't want any compiled code (the stuff that runs on a PIC) to be restricted by your licence in any
way.

8. You don't want any money for any of this.

If this is correct, then I don't see there is much of a problem.  The argument that "embedded programs don't
call libraries dynamically" does not apply, because the embedded programs are output from the compiler, not
covered by the licence for source of the compiler/libraries.  Let's face it, people use Outlook to write
emails bashing Microsoft, and MS could not stop them doing so because the copyright on Outlook does not cover
output produced by it.  On the other side, I don't think that the open-source licence on emacs has any effect
on the output it produces (edited text files, say) so there is no compulsion on anyone to make public every
document they write using emacs.

To summarise: I believe that in general the licence in effect on a piece of software does not affect the
rights of the user in releation to the output it produces.

Only the most restrictive proprietary software licences attempt to copyright (or in the US, patent) the output
the software produces, and these are really rare, and I'm fairly sure they'd fail in court, at least in
Europe.  Unless you specifically try to copyright the output of the JAL compiler (and the creators of the
output-file format, Microchip or Intel, would probably stop this anyway), as I see it the code produced can be
handled by the programmer in any way they want, including copyrighting it, keeping it secret, and charging
money.

Consequently I believe you can just use the licence you want for the compiler and libraries, and ignore
anything to do with the output, even though the output happens to be software.

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
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

.

2004\01\28@061029 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> 1. You have invented a computer language, called it JAL and
> written a compiler for it.
> 2. The JAL compiler runs on a PC (or some other non-embedded
> machine) and it produces PIC machine code as
> output.

correct

> 3. JAL can have libraries added to it that contain new code
> written by others.

There is nothing magical about Jal libraries, they are just pieces of
text. Think of it as a C compiler or assembler without the option of
separate compilation (much like the old TurboPascal).

> 4. You want to grant free-of-charge access to anyone to use
> the JAL language, the compiler and any libraries,
> so that they can write JAL programs and produce PIC code from them.

The Jal compiler is available as GPL, which I find a perfect match for
what I want with the compiler.

> 7. You don't want any compiled code (the stuff that runs on a
> PIC) to be restricted by your licence in any way.

> call libraries dynamically" does not apply, because the
> embedded programs are output from the compiler, not
> covered by the licence for source of the compiler/libraries.

True for the compiler, not true for the libraries. The output is a
'derived work' (lawyer speak) of the libraries.

> Let's face it, people use Outlook to write
> emails bashing Microsoft, and MS could not stop them doing so
> because the copyright on Outlook does not cover
> output produced by it.  On the other side, I don't think that
> the open-source licence on emacs has any effect
> on the output it produces (edited text files, say) so there
> is no compulsion on anyone to make public every
> document they write using emacs.

correct, but outlook and emacs have a role compareable to the compiler.
compare it to a xerox (copying) machine: what comes out of the machine
is definitely a derived work of the input!

no problem on that part. it is the libraries, and my wish to combine
these two goals that give the trouble:
- keep the libraries, and all library (text-form) derivations open
- impose no restrictions whatsoever on the compiled (.hex) form

> Only the most restrictive proprietary software licences
> attempt to copyright (or in the US, patent) the output
> the software produces, and these are really rare, and I'm
> fairly sure they'd fail in court, at least in
> Europe.

Not relevant to the Jal library discussion, but I have met embedded
compilers that charged a per-target fee, even if no library code was
included. I don't recall any court cases about this, but I think such a
license would hold. But such licenses are rare nowadays.

> Unless you specifically try to copyright the output
> of the JAL compiler (and the creators of the
> output-file format, Microchip or Intel, would probably stop
> this anyway), as I see it the code produced can be
> handled by the programmer in any way they want, including
> copyrighting it, keeping it secret, and charging
> money.

Again not relevant, but the fact that the format of a hex file is
described does not mean that I could never copyright or patent something
that is expressed in a .hex file.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

2004\01\28@061029 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> 1. You have invented a computer language, called it JAL and
> written a compiler for it.
> 2. The JAL compiler runs on a PC (or some other non-embedded
> machine) and it produces PIC machine code as
> output.

correct

> 3. JAL can have libraries added to it that contain new code
> written by others.

There is nothing magical about Jal libraries, they are just pieces of
text. Think of it as a C compiler or assembler without the option of
separate compilation (much like the old TurboPascal).

> 4. You want to grant free-of-charge access to anyone to use
> the JAL language, the compiler and any libraries,
> so that they can write JAL programs and produce PIC code from them.

The Jal compiler is available as GPL, which I find a perfect match for
what I want with the compiler.

> 7. You don't want any compiled code (the stuff that runs on a
> PIC) to be restricted by your licence in any way.

> call libraries dynamically" does not apply, because the
> embedded programs are output from the compiler, not
> covered by the licence for source of the compiler/libraries.

True for the compiler, not true for the libraries. The output is a
'derived work' (lawyer speak) of the libraries.

> Let's face it, people use Outlook to write
> emails bashing Microsoft, and MS could not stop them doing so
> because the copyright on Outlook does not cover
> output produced by it.  On the other side, I don't think that
> the open-source licence on emacs has any effect
> on the output it produces (edited text files, say) so there
> is no compulsion on anyone to make public every
> document they write using emacs.

correct, but outlook and emacs have a role compareable to the compiler.
compare it to a xerox (copying) machine: what comes out of the machine
is definitely a derived work of the input!

no problem on that part. it is the libraries, and my wish to combine
these two goals that give the trouble:
- keep the libraries, and all library (text-form) derivations open
- impose no restrictions whatsoever on the compiled (.hex) form

> Only the most restrictive proprietary software licences
> attempt to copyright (or in the US, patent) the output
> the software produces, and these are really rare, and I'm
> fairly sure they'd fail in court, at least in
> Europe.

Not relevant to the Jal library discussion, but I have met embedded
compilers that charged a per-target fee, even if no library code was
included. I don't recall any court cases about this, but I think such a
license would hold. But such licenses are rare nowadays.

> Unless you specifically try to copyright the output
> of the JAL compiler (and the creators of the
> output-file format, Microchip or Intel, would probably stop
> this anyway), as I see it the code produced can be
> handled by the programmer in any way they want, including
> copyrighting it, keeping it secret, and charging
> money.

Again not relevant, but the fact that the format of a hex file is
described does not mean that I could never copyright or patent something
that is expressed in a .hex file.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

.

2004\01\28@063127 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:09:15 +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> > 3. JAL can have libraries added to it that contain new code
> > written by others.
>
> There is nothing magical about Jal libraries, they are just pieces of
> text. Think of it as a C compiler or assembler without the option of
> separate compilation (much like the old TurboPascal).

Ah - I think I understand this better now: a JAL library contains source code written in JAL, which is
compiled-in with other code to form the PIC program?    I can see now that if that's the case, the copyright
of the compiled version would normally involve the creator of the library.

I had the idea that a JAL library extended JAL itself, by defining and compiling new instructions, for
example.  Perhaps it's time I studied JAL in a bit more detail!

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
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

2004\01\28@063127 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:09:15 +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> > 3. JAL can have libraries added to it that contain new code
> > written by others.
>
> There is nothing magical about Jal libraries, they are just pieces of
> text. Think of it as a C compiler or assembler without the option of
> separate compilation (much like the old TurboPascal).

Ah - I think I understand this better now: a JAL library contains source code written in JAL, which is
compiled-in with other code to form the PIC program?    I can see now that if that's the case, the copyright
of the compiled version would normally involve the creator of the library.

I had the idea that a JAL library extended JAL itself, by defining and compiling new instructions, for
example.  Perhaps it's time I studied JAL in a bit more detail!

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
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

.

2004\01\28@064203 by Chris Emerson

flavicon
face
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:09:15PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > call libraries dynamically" does not apply, because the
> > embedded programs are output from the compiler, not
> > covered by the licence for source of the compiler/libraries.
>
> True for the compiler, not true for the libraries. The output is a
> 'derived work' (lawyer speak) of the libraries.

Have you considered what they do for GNU bison?  The output of bison
contains a significant chunk of bison itself, but there's an exception
which means that a program produced with bison doesn't have to be under
the GPL.

See src/parse-gram.c in the bison source for the text of the exception.

Chris

--
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

2004\01\28@064203 by Chris Emerson

flavicon
face
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:09:15PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > call libraries dynamically" does not apply, because the
> > embedded programs are output from the compiler, not
> > covered by the licence for source of the compiler/libraries.
>
> True for the compiler, not true for the libraries. The output is a
> 'derived work' (lawyer speak) of the libraries.

Have you considered what they do for GNU bison?  The output of bison
contains a significant chunk of bison itself, but there's an exception
which means that a program produced with bison doesn't have to be under
the GPL.

See src/parse-gram.c in the bison source for the text of the exception.

Chris

--
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

.

2004\01\28@065033 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Have you considered what they do for GNU bison?

Maybe that will work. I'll look into it.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

2004\01\28@065033 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Have you considered what they do for GNU bison?

Maybe that will work. I'll look into it.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

.

2004\01\28@072355 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> 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.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

2004\01\28@072355 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> 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.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

.

2004\01\28@081853 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> Only the most restrictive proprietary software licences
>> attempt to copyright (or in the US, patent) the output
>> the software produces, and these are really rare, and I'm
>> fairly sure they'd fail in court, at least in
>> Europe.
>
>Not relevant to the Jal library discussion, but I have met embedded
>compilers that charged a per-target fee, even if no library code was
>included. I don't recall any court cases about this, but I think such a
>license would hold. But such licenses are rare nowadays.

I believe some (all) of the Microsoft Compiler licenses for current
compilers restrict you from building products that compete with Microsoft
ones. However I do not have a copy of such a compiler, so cannot verify it.

The next item then is how would the compiler supplier or their agent,
determine that such a clause has been violated without incurring the wrath
of the digital security act (what ever it is actually called) that makes
disassembly or reverse engineering of the code illegal?

--
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

2004\01\28@081853 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> Only the most restrictive proprietary software licences
>> attempt to copyright (or in the US, patent) the output
>> the software produces, and these are really rare, and I'm
>> fairly sure they'd fail in court, at least in
>> Europe.
>
>Not relevant to the Jal library discussion, but I have met embedded
>compilers that charged a per-target fee, even if no library code was
>included. I don't recall any court cases about this, but I think such a
>license would hold. But such licenses are rare nowadays.

I believe some (all) of the Microsoft Compiler licenses for current
compilers restrict you from building products that compete with Microsoft
ones. However I do not have a copy of such a compiler, so cannot verify it.

The next item then is how would the compiler supplier or their agent,
determine that such a clause has been violated without incurring the wrath
of the digital security act (what ever it is actually called) that makes
disassembly or reverse engineering of the code illegal?

--
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

.

2004\01\28@083138 by Dan Oelke

flavicon
face
Wouter,

All this discussion on the "proper" license for your JAL libraries has
me thinking - why not ask an expert in the area?  There is the "Open
Source Initiative" people who specifically are set up to promot open
source software.  Their website is:
   http://opensource.org/

You can email them at: spam_OUTosiTakeThisOuTspamopensource.org

There is also a list of 40+ open source licenses at:
   http://opensource.org/licenses/

While you and I probably don't want to go through all 40 trying to
figure out which one best fits your situation, they might be able to
help you at least narrow down the list.

I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license so permit
me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?

You might also want to look at the "Artistic License"
http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php

Dan

--
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

2004\01\28@083138 by Dan Oelke

flavicon
face
Wouter,

All this discussion on the "proper" license for your JAL libraries has
me thinking - why not ask an expert in the area?  There is the "Open
Source Initiative" people who specifically are set up to promot open
source software.  Their website is:
   http://opensource.org/

You can email them at: .....osiKILLspamspam@spam@opensource.org

There is also a list of 40+ open source licenses at:
   http://opensource.org/licenses/

While you and I probably don't want to go through all 40 trying to
figure out which one best fits your situation, they might be able to
help you at least narrow down the list.

I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license so permit
me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?

You might also want to look at the "Artistic License"
http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php

Dan

--
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

.

2004\01\28@084837 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license
> so permit
> me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
> for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?

I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
does not prevent that.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

2004\01\28@084837 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license
> so permit
> me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
> for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?

I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
does not prevent that.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

.

2004\01\28@085455 by Chris Emerson

flavicon
face
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:46:39PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license
> > so permit
> > me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
> > for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?
>
> I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
> does not prevent that.

Nor does the GPL, although it does mean that anyone who buys the
modified library can redistribute it as much as they like.

Chris

--
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

2004\01\28@085455 by Chris Emerson

flavicon
face
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:46:39PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license
> > so permit
> > me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
> > for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?
>
> I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
> does not prevent that.

Nor does the GPL, although it does mean that anyone who buys the
modified library can redistribute it as much as they like.

Chris

--
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

.

2004\01\28@085909 by Chris Emerson

flavicon
face
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:23:19PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > 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.

What would they gain from that?  In the bison case, it would mean that
code based on the output of this modified bison could only be used for
GPL software, which I'm sure the FSF aren't going to be worried about.

Do you want to ensure that any enhanced version of the library can still
be used in closed-source commercial firmware?

Chris

--
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

2004\01\28@085909 by Chris Emerson

flavicon
face
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:23:19PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > 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.

What would they gain from that?  In the bison case, it would mean that
code based on the output of this modified bison could only be used for
GPL software, which I'm sure the FSF aren't going to be worried about.

Do you want to ensure that any enhanced version of the library can still
be used in closed-source commercial firmware?

Chris

--
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

.

2004\01\28@090117 by James Caska

flavicon
face
>I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
does not prevent that.

Is there a specific example where someone has done this that has got you
concerned?

James Caska
http://www.muvium.com
uVM - 'Java Bred for Embedded'



{Original Message removed}

2004\01\28@090117 by James Caska

flavicon
face
>I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
does not prevent that.

Is there a specific example where someone has done this that has got you
concerned?

James Caska
http://www.muvium.com
uVM - 'Java Bred for Embedded'



{Original Message removed}

2004\01\28@090118 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> > I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license
> > so permit
> > me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
> > for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?
>
> I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
> does not prevent that.

The GPL *specifically* allows one to charge. However, you *must* make
the source available. This does allow people to make money selling
software under the GPL license. For example, the Linux vendors.
--
D. Jay Newman           !
jayspamKILLspamsprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
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

2004\01\28@090118 by D. Jay Newman
flavicon
face
> > I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license
> > so permit
> > me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
> > for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?
>
> I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
> does not prevent that.

The GPL *specifically* allows one to charge. However, you *must* make
the source available. This does allow people to make money selling
software under the GPL license. For example, the Linux vendors.
--
D. Jay Newman           !
.....jayKILLspamspam.....sprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
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

.

2004\01\28@090557 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Nor does the GPL, although it does mean that anyone who buys the
> modified library can redistribute it as much as they like.

I know, and I'd settle for that. Consider what I said as a less accurate
description.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

2004\01\28@090557 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Nor does the GPL, although it does mean that anyone who buys the
> modified library can redistribute it as much as they like.

I know, and I'd settle for that. Consider what I said as a less accurate
description.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

.

2004\01\28@091128 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> >I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
> does not prevent that.
>
> Is there a specific example where someone has done this that
> has got you
> concerned?

No. I guess Jal has not attracted such attention, and it would be
unlikely, but when I change (or rather: reissue) the library license I
better make it good.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

2004\01\28@091128 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> >I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
> does not prevent that.
>
> Is there a specific example where someone has done this that
> has got you
> concerned?

No. I guess Jal has not attracted such attention, and it would be
unlikely, but when I change (or rather: reissue) the library license I
better make it good.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

.

2004\01\28@091131 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Do you want to ensure that any enhanced version of the
> library can still
> be used in closed-source commercial firmware?

Yes. And on top of that I want to be sure that when such a library is
spread it is still free in the same sense as my original.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

2004\01\28@091131 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Do you want to ensure that any enhanced version of the
> library can still
> be used in closed-source commercial firmware?

Yes. And on top of that I want to be sure that when such a library is
spread it is still free in the same sense as my original.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

.
Return-Path: <>
Received: from mitvma.mit.edu ([18.92.0.3]) by tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net
         (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
         id <EraseME20040128001154.MYKS5780.tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.netspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu>>          for <piclist_errorsspamspam_OUTSYMPATICO.CA>;
         Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:11:54 -0500
Received:  by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via spool with SMTP id 6074 ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:11:50 EST
Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 1027; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:11:51 -0500
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:11:51 -0500
From:         "L-Soft list server at MITVMA.MIT.EDU (1.8e)"
             <@spam@LISTSERVKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject: PICLIST: error report from YAHOO.COM
To:           KILLspamlistsjoshKILLspamspam3MTMP.COM,
             RemoveMEpiclist_errorsTakeThisOuTspamSYMPATICO.CA
Message-ID:   <LISTSERV%spamBeGone2004012719115082spamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
X-LSV-ListID: None

The enclosed message has been identified as a delivery error for the PICLIST
list because it was sent to 'TakeThisOuTowner-piclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU'.

------------------------------ Message in error -------------------------------
Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail
         V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 0999; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:10:58 -0500
Received: from *unknown [66.218.86.169] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level
         430) via TCP with SMTP ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:10:57 EST
X-Warning: mitvma.mit.edu: Could not confirm that host  [66.218.86.169] is
          mta252.mail.scd.yahoo.com
From: RemoveMEMAILER-DAEMONspamTakeThisOuTyahoo.com
To: owner-piclistEraseMEspam.....mitvma.mit.edu
X-Loop: EraseMEMAILER-DAEMONspamyahoo.com
Subject: Delivery failure

Message from yahoo.com.
Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).

<RemoveMEhbarregrdEraseMEspamEraseMEyahoo.com>:
Sorry, your message to RemoveMEhbarregrdspam_OUTspamKILLspamyahoo.com cannot be delivered.  This account is over quota.

--- Original message follows.

The original message is over 5K. Message truncated.

Return-Path: <RemoveMEowner-piclistTakeThisOuTspamspammitvma.mit.edu>
Received: from 209.119.0.109  (EHLO cherry.ease.lsoft.com) (209.119.0.109)
 by mta252.mail.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:41:12 -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 <EraseME10.00CBF77DspamspamspamBeGonecherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:16:39 -0500
Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e)
         with spool id 0027 for RemoveMEPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU; Tue, 27 Jan 2004
         13:16:19 -0500
Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail
         V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 0551; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:15:56 -0500
Received: from pd2mo2so.prod.shaw.ca [24.71.223.10] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM
         SMTP Level 430) via TCP with ESMTP ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:15:56 EST
X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by pd2mo2so.prod.shaw.ca
Received: from pd2mr2so.prod.shaw.ca (pd2mr2so-ser.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.109])
         by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28
         2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS50080TTBLJB@l-daemon> for
         PICLISTSTOPspamspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:45:21 -0700 (MST)
Received: from pn2ml10so.prod.shaw.ca (pn2ml10so-qfe0.prod.shaw.ca
         [10.0.121.80]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18
         (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS5009R7TBLLS@l-daemon> for
         spamBeGonePICLISTSTOPspamspamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:45:21 -0700 (MST)
Received: from UALBERTA.ca (h24-65-14-55.ed.shawcable.net [24.65.14.55]) by
         l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28
         2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS500L05TBLY0@l-daemon> for
         KILLspamPICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:45:21 -0700 (MST)
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
X-Accept-Language: en
References: <EraseMEE1AlGKo-0007GK-GVspamEraseMEsmtp.aaisp.net.uk>
           <0f1901c3e4ba$3c7caec0$@spam@e7bdf682@spam@spamspam_OUTspace.rl.ac.uk>
           <01c901c3e4bd$47195420$7b01a8c0@Paradise>
Message-ID:  <spamBeGone4016A3C2.6445C893spamKILLspamUALBERTA.ca>
Date:         Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:45:38 -0700
Reply-To:     pic microcontroller discussion list <.....PICLISTspam_OUTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sender:       pic microcontroller discussion list <TakeThisOuTPICLIST.....spamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
From:         Robert Rolf <TakeThisOuTRobert.RolfKILLspamspamspamUALBERTA.CA>
Organization: U of Alberta
Subject: Re: [OT]: Beagle2 Hohmann
To:           .....PICLISTspamRemoveMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU
Precedence: list

Russell McMahon wrote:
>=20
> > >Incidentally, why are there so many Mars missions arriving there
> > >all at once?  Is there some astronomical-geometry that favours i=
t?
> >
> > Probably because mars has been the closest to earth for some 28,0=
00 years,
> > so the travel time is shortest, and there is probably an advantag=
e in
> signal
> > strengths as well.
>=20
> The minimum energy path between two bodies in Keplerian circular or=
bits is
> named a Hohman transfer. It is an ellipse which is tangential to bo=
th orbits
> where it touches the source and target. This alignment with earth a=
nd mars
> occurs variably. The present closest approach for yonks condition p=
robably
> makes it especially attractive.
>=20
> Good explanation of Hohman transfer here (note the server ! :-)  )
>=20
>         web.mit.edu/12.000/www/teams/9/trajectory/hohman.htm=
l
>=20
> Named afaik for a NASA scientist who first thought of it.

Not quite.
There was no NASA in 1925 if this Stanford quiz is to be believed.
However, there does appear to have been a Hofman at NASA, hence the c=
onfusion
with Hohmann.

quizbowl.stanford.edu/archive/spencer01/SS2.htm
9. Using the vis-viva equation, one can easily find the delta-v=20
needed to enter one; let the second term be the arithmetic mean=20
of the lower and higher orbits' radii. They require only two delta-v'=
s, as
at both endpoints they are tangent to the initial and final orbits. F=
TP,=20
name these elliptical paths,=20
first worked out by their namesake discoverer in 1925,=20
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the most fuel-efficient transfer orbit between
one circular path and another.
ANSWER: Hohmann transfer orbit


http://www.astro.amu.edu.pl/~breiter/lectures/astrody/Hohmann.pdf

Walter Hohmann (1880=961945) was a professional
engineer who eventually became the city architect of
Essen, Germany. In 1925 he published his masterpiece,
Die Erreichbarkeit der Himmelsk=F6rper
(The Attainability of Celestial Bodies), in which he demonstrated
that the interplanetary trajectory requiring the
least expenditure of energy is an ellipse tangent to the
orbits of both the departure and the arrival planets.
The =93Hohmann transfer ellipse=94 has endured, but his
investigations in interplanetary mission design go far
beyond that result and represent a milestone in the
development of space travel.

etc.

Robert

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


..
.

2004\01\28@091741 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> 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.

By adding a sentence that says that redistribution *must* retain the license
text in its entirety.

Yes, there is nothing that you can do to prevent somebody from dropping
the sentence, but at least you have made your intent clear.
--
D. Jay Newman           !
RemoveMEjayspamspamBeGonesprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
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

2004\01\28@091741 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> 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.

By adding a sentence that says that redistribution *must* retain the license
text in its entirety.

Yes, there is nothing that you can do to prevent somebody from dropping
the sentence, but at least you have made your intent clear.
--
D. Jay Newman           !
spamBeGonejay@spam@spamspam_OUTsprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
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

.

2004\01\28@093231 by Dan Oelke

flavicon
face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>>Do you want to ensure that any enhanced version of the
>>library can still
>>be used in closed-source commercial firmware?
>>
>>
>
>Yes. And on top of that I want to be sure that when such a library is
>spread it is still free in the same sense as my original.
>
>Wouter van Ooijen
>
>
>
The Artistic License is widely used in Perl circles where practically al
libraries are distributed and used in source form.
It has an optional clause that might fit your needs:

8.Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is always
permitted provided that the use of this Package is embedded; that is,
when no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible
to the end user of the commercial distribution. Such use shall not be
construed as a distribution of this Package.

Dan

--
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

2004\01\28@093231 by Dan Oelke

flavicon
face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>>Do you want to ensure that any enhanced version of the
>>library can still
>>be used in closed-source commercial firmware?
>>
>>
>
>Yes. And on top of that I want to be sure that when such a library is
>spread it is still free in the same sense as my original.
>
>Wouter van Ooijen
>
>
>
The Artistic License is widely used in Perl circles where practically al
libraries are distributed and used in source form.
It has an optional clause that might fit your needs:

8.Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is always
permitted provided that the use of this Package is embedded; that is,
when no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible
to the end user of the commercial distribution. Such use shall not be
construed as a distribution of this Package.

Dan

--
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

.

2004\01\28@100535 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:46:39PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license
> > so permit
> > me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
> > for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?
>
> I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
> does not prevent that.

As someone else pointed out, the GPL/LGPL allows for a "resonable" charge
for getting the library to you.

I think the worse issue is that under the BSDL there is no obligation
to release changes to the text library, even if you distribute executables
that utilize the modified library.

Look, from close examination it's clear that the LGPL has its claws out.
However it seems to me that those claws are there for a reason. An Embedded
LGPL license should reflect the sprit of the LGPL while dealing with the
realities of embedded development. Consider these changes to the LGPL to
generate the ELGPL:

1) The licensee rebuild clause is dropped. There should be no requirement that
licensee has the ability to build new executables when incorporating ELGPL code.
It's a loss, but there's simply too much of a strain in an embedded system to
essentially force firmware update ability, and requiring the developer to
offer a toolchain to the end user.

2) Explicitly state that the compilation or static linking of ELGPL and non
free code together does not affect the status of the non free code. But with
the caveat of...

3) The resulting executable is in fact a derived element of the ELGPL library.
Hold on Wouter, hold on. Here's why. In order to ensure that the library
remains free it is necessary to enforce the license upon changes to the
library.  Without making the resulting executable a derived work, there's no
way to subject changes to the library source itself to redistribution.

So to summarize: Drop the rebuild clause, make executables a derived work of
the license, so that developers who make changes to the library, then
distribute the resulting executables using the modified library are obligated
to distribute the changes to the library (to those who get the executable).
This will retain the sprit of the LGPL while facilitating the development
style that work for us. At no point in time is non free source code that uses
the library, modified or unmodified, affected by using ELGPL code, no matter
how they are combined.

Any thoughts? And are there any licenses that are phased in this ballpark?

BAJ

--
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

2004\01\28@100535 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:46:39PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license
> > so permit
> > me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
> > for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?
>
> I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
> does not prevent that.

As someone else pointed out, the GPL/LGPL allows for a "resonable" charge
for getting the library to you.

I think the worse issue is that under the BSDL there is no obligation
to release changes to the text library, even if you distribute executables
that utilize the modified library.

Look, from close examination it's clear that the LGPL has its claws out.
However it seems to me that those claws are there for a reason. An Embedded
LGPL license should reflect the sprit of the LGPL while dealing with the
realities of embedded development. Consider these changes to the LGPL to
generate the ELGPL:

1) The licensee rebuild clause is dropped. There should be no requirement that
licensee has the ability to build new executables when incorporating ELGPL code.
It's a loss, but there's simply too much of a strain in an embedded system to
essentially force firmware update ability, and requiring the developer to
offer a toolchain to the end user.

2) Explicitly state that the compilation or static linking of ELGPL and non
free code together does not affect the status of the non free code. But with
the caveat of...

3) The resulting executable is in fact a derived element of the ELGPL library.
Hold on Wouter, hold on. Here's why. In order to ensure that the library
remains free it is necessary to enforce the license upon changes to the
library.  Without making the resulting executable a derived work, there's no
way to subject changes to the library source itself to redistribution.

So to summarize: Drop the rebuild clause, make executables a derived work of
the license, so that developers who make changes to the library, then
distribute the resulting executables using the modified library are obligated
to distribute the changes to the library (to those who get the executable).
This will retain the sprit of the LGPL while facilitating the development
style that work for us. At no point in time is non free source code that uses
the library, modified or unmodified, affected by using ELGPL code, no matter
how they are combined.

Any thoughts? And are there any licenses that are phased in this ballpark?

BAJ

--
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

.

2004\01\28@134335 by William Couture

picon face
>--- Original Message ---
>From: Wouter van Ooijen <TakeThisOuTwouterspamspamVOTI.NL>
>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

.

2004\01\28@135822 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I'm wondering if you're putting more into this JAL library
> question than is actually there.

That might be true, in some sense :)

> The fact that a compiler is GPL'ed does not mean that it's
> output from a propriatary program is automatically GPL'ed.

true

> 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.

true, it is a derivate of the input

> 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.

It does not matter who does what, the result is legally a derivate of
both the user code and the libraries (as far as used).

Forgive me for being arrogant, but I had a number of legal classes in my
university years, and my father-in-law is a very experienced patent
attorney. I do know about some (most?) of the subtleties, and I did
investigate a number of obvious solutions and they all turned out
inadequate.

One suggestion that has been made a few times is to add/modify the GPL.
Not possible: the GPL is a carefully crafted document, a small change
made by me would seriously degrade the quality (that is: it might result
in a license that inadvertently does not do what I want it to do). And
besides: it is copyrighted!

Another suggestion is to apply the GPL, and in each source file add a
license statement that gives a free ride to the compiled code (like
BISON). But the GPL allows all modifications of the source, including
removing that extra license. And I can not add an extra clause to the
GPL, see above.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
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

.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...